Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Wheelchairs and Artificial Limbs

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the provision of wheelchairs and artificial limbs.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): The Disablement Services Authority was established for this purpose. Its first annual report was published in 1988, detailing the improvements made in the service to date. A copy of the report is available in the Library. The annual report for 1989 is being prepared and will be published in August.
I am sure that the authority will be happy to answer any particular questions that the right hon. Gentleman may have.

Mr. Ashley: I am grateful for that full reply. Will the Minister exercise his influence to ensure that every disabled person who acquires an artificial limb or a wheelchair receives an appropriate one soon, that outdoor power wheelchairs are soon made available, and that the funds of the Disablement Services Authority are increased to enable it to provide these?

Mr. Mellor: I and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled are in regular contact with Lord Holderness. It is certainly our commitment that everyone who needs a wheelchair or artificial limb should have one. Work is going forward, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the indoor-outdoor occupant-controlled powered wheelchair, and we hope that it will be possible to set up studies of its effectiveness in actual use. We are also keen to develop an active-user wheelchair for younger and more active disabled people.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. and learned Friend support the appeal by Professor McColl to doctors who prescribe wheelchairs, to the effect that millions of pounds could be saved on wheelchairs that are hardly ever used or are not returned when they are no longer required? That money could be used to upgrade heavily used wheelchairs.

Mr. Mellor: To my mind, that is a useful additional point to that made earlier by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Just as it is our commitment that everyone who needs an artificial limb or wheelchair should have one, we believe that it is a waste of resources if people who do not need wheelchairs or artificial limbs are prescribed them. We need sensible prescribing which meets the needs of disabled people. Otherwise, as Professor McColl has pointed out, limbs and wheelchairs are stored and never used.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there has riot been rapid enough progress in recent years in making available to people in need of them special wheelchairs which are suitable for their circumstances? So far, there has been a general approach and a standard wheelchair which has failed to meet the needs of many people. Although we are waiting the outcome of studies, is it not possible to be more flexible and responsive to individual needs?

Mr. Mellor: I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman says, in that I certainly believe—I hope that I conveyed the flavour of this point in my initial answer—that wheelchairs need to be more tailored to individual needs. That is why we are keen on the active-user wheelchair and keen that the studies on the indoor-outdoor occupant-controlled powered wheelchair should go ahead. It is also why I had a most useful meeting with Lord Holderness the other day. I know that the Disablement Services Authority is keen to make progress, too.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not now extremely urgent for the Minister to press the Disablement Services Authority for a commitment to provide outdoor powered wheelchairs and to supply the resources? Has he read the article in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Graham Mulley which shows that only one in four hospital wheelchairs is safe and in good order, with the result that patients suffer pressure sores, fatigue, falls, shin injuries, chafed heels, penetrating foot injuries and lacerations? Does the Minister agree that that is deeply disgraceful, and what action has he taken since the article was written?

Mr. Mellor: The action that we have taken, as the right hon. Member knows, preceded the article in the two respects that he mentioned. First, on the indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs, he will know that the Disablement Services Authority started a 12-month pilot study in January, and I hope that that will proceed successfully. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the report in 1986 by the McColl committee, which was established by the Government, first drew attention to the large number of inadequacies in wheelchair repair arrangements. The wheelchair repair service was open to competitive tendering in 1988–89. Some 79 contracts have been awarded, and we intend to ensure that the service is much improved. We certainly do not mind articles pointing out its deficiencies as that is a spur to further achievements and improvements.

Cervical Cancer Screening

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any improvements have been made to the time in which results of cervical cancer screening are issued as a result of the use of private sector laboratories.

Mr. Mellor: I am pleased to say there has been a further improvement in the time taken by National Health Service laboratories to report on cervical smears. More than 85 per cent. are currently meeting our target time of one month. This is due partly to the use of private laboratories. Other measures taken have included employment of additional staff, overtime working and use of other NHS laboratories.

Dr. Twinn: I am grateful for that encouraging answer. Does not this successful co-operation between the private sector and the NHS have wider implications?

Mr. Mellor: Yes. I am sure that such a partnership will be useful in a whole range of NHS activities. Fortunately, examples of co-operation between district health authorities and the private sector over a whole range of NHS activities are legion.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that his Department loses no opportunity for co-operation with the private service in any way, as this often cuts worrying waiting time for patients after tests, and leads to much better treatment?

Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the highest hopes for our extremely complex cervical cancer screening programme, but obviously much of that is set at naught if there are long waiting times. I am glad to say that while in December 1988, in 43 districts results were taking more than four weeks to come through, by the end of March 1989 the number was down to 25. I hope that by improvements in NHS laboratories and, where appropriate, use of private laboratories we shall be able to reduce that figure still further.

"Working for Patients"

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of representations received by his Department since the publication of "Working for Patients" which express criticism or anxiety in regard to present Government health policies.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): So far, I have received more than 5,500 representations on the White Paper, "Working for Patients". Many ask questions, many support all or some of the proposals, and some refer only to specific aspects. It is not possible to distinguish the letters in the way that the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister expect to receive more letters, not just about resources and the apparent commitment to destabilise the service but in response to yesterday's announcement, which seems to reveal an assumption that a captain of industry is very much in a part-time position, while nurses are so busy caring, in a way that the Government do not reveal, that they cannot be spared to serve on the policy decisions board of the NHS?

Mr. Clarke: The people who will be given much more local responsibility for managing and delivering the service will be encouraged to see that we are able to recruit to the policy board the services of some high-powered and successful people with experience of large organisations. We also have an important job of nursing management to do. That is why there is a director of nursing on the management executive who is charged with that part of the management responsibility that has to be done from the centre.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In the correspondence that my right hon. and learned Friend is receiving, is he getting the sort of letters that many of us are getting from elderly patients who are being scared by the British Medical Association, through their doctors, with the most vicious lies and propaganda? What does he intend to do to make the BMA realise that it has a duty not to scare patients?

Mr. Clarke: I have written to every general practitioner pointing out that the leaflets that they were distributing were inaccurate and untrue. I hope that many have withdrawn them as a result, but I cannot approach every GP who uses the tactics described by my hon. Friend. It is grotesquely unfair to make such claims to elderly and vulnerable patients in pursuit of some perceived interest. Now that we have settled the GP contract, I hope that there will be much less of that, and much more of the sensible discussion that I have made it perfectly clear that I am open to having with the BMA.

Mr. Fearn: Can the Minister confirm that among those representations and anxieties, many members of the nursing profession have written pointing out that no one from their profession has been elected to the board that he has announced? Why did he not make a statement to the House about that board? Also, what representations has he received from medical secretaries who are having a tough time at the moment?

Mr. Clarke: I have not yet received many letters from nurses about the make-up of the policy board. As their general secretary has written to me, I shall no doubt be receiving some more, but they will be given the same explanation—that the policy board is not a representative committee. [Interruption.] Looking back, I believe that it was an extremely bad tradition of the Health Service that everything had to be subjected to a committee consisting of one doctor, one nurse, one administrator and one treasurer, so that prolonged multi-disciplinary deliberations took place before, in most cases, no decisions were reached. The policy board is charged with the overall strategy for the service. On the executive charged with the management responsibilities it is essential to have a director of nursing, and we have such a director.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the approach taken by the general manager of the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham, who said that his hospital was extremely interested in becoming an NHS trust hospital so long as that was in the interests of the patients whom it served? Is not that a constructive approach to the White Paper and one which contrasts substantially with the general approach taken by the BMA?

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely, and I believe that the decision has been supported by the majority of the medical


staff at the Queen's medical centre. I take that as an expression of interest because potentially the proposal could benefit patients. I agree with the general manager that after a great deal more discussion, which has to take place, the decision as to whether the hospital becomes self-governing will depend on whether that is in the interests of the patients, the hospital and the staff.

Mr. Turner: Has the Secretary of State seen the open letter published in the Wolverhampton Express and Star last week from more than 50 per cent. of Wolverhampton consultants, saying that they could not now guarantee the inhabitants of Wolverhampton a comprehensive health service due to lack of resources and threatened ward closures? What has the Secretary of State to say about that parlous affair?

Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that in all branches of politics and public life it is easier to get people to sign round robins and petitions than to give serious views and discussion. I cannot think that the majority of Wolverhampton consultants believe such nonsense.

Mr. Turner: They signed it.

Mr. Clarke: There is nothing in the White Paper to justify making such alarmist allegations to the population of Wolverhampton.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time for the hyperbole and scaremongering by the BMA to stop because it is very confusing for patients and adds nothing to the debate? As a conciliatory gesture, is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to meet the BMA without any preconditions whatever just to talk about the proposals which will help patient care?

Mr. Clarke: When the BMA announced last week that it wished to meet me for discussions, I announced my readiness to have such discussions. The precondition has to be that we all agree on the aim of improving the National Health Service. I look forward to the BMA putting forward positive ideas for improving the National Health Service. I am still waiting for a date to be arranged for the discussions. It is a great pity that after announcing its wish to talk about the proposals, the BMA has now started publishing whole-page newspaper advertisements containing a great list of blatant untruths, which I do not think for one moment that the BMA believes but which are designed merely to frighten patients in the hope that that will somehow strengthen the BMA's bargaining power in discussions with me.

Mr. Robin Cook: What representations did the Secretary of State receive to the effect that what the Health Service needed was three industrialists all clutching their private medical cover? Is he aware that the chief contribution of Sir Graham Day and Bob Scholey to the public sector has been in closing large chunks of it and privatising what was left? Is that why they have been chosen to run the Health Service? How could the Secretary of State find places for four business men on the health policy board but no room for even one nurse? Have not those who know how to care for patients got at least as much to offer the Health Service as those who know only how to read a balance sheet and close a factory?

Mr. Clarke: It is a serious criticism of the hon. Gentleman that he reminds me so much of his hon. Friend

the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) reacting to the Griffiths report on general management in the Health Service four or five years ago. The hon. Gentleman talked a lot of nonsense about supermarkets and how the proposals were not suitable, but the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows that he would not wish to reverse the great management improvements introduced by Sir Roy Griffiths from Sainsbury's. He knows that a giant organisation requires people able to cope with providing leadership and guidance for managers who will be charged with such great responsibility in the service. The hon. Gentleman should not resort to such populist nonsense when his own proposals are simply that every health authority should be dominated by local councillors and trade unionists, who I suppose he imagines will bring a dynamic new improvement to the way in which care is delivered.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to hazard a guess as to how many of the innocent patients who are writing to us as a result of being lobbied by rather unprofessional and unscrupulous doctors— [Interruption.]—have any comprehension of the true nature of our reforms? Rather than feeding patients a diet of misinformation, would not doctors be better advised to tell them the true facts and acknowledge the Government's responsibility in overhauling a National Health Service system which was creaking under the strains and demands placed on it?

Mr. Clarke: I have had the same experience as my hon. Friend. There is one village in my constituency from which I keep receiving letters, mainly from worried and elderly people, beginning "I agree with my doctor that" and then giving some nonsense description of the White Paper. I am having to write to reassure those people. That is in contrast with the large meetings that I have had in the past week —there were two in Yorkshire and one last night in Winchester—which were attended by many general practitioners and where there was much criticism, I concede, but much constructive discussion as well. It is ridiculous that when we agree with the profession that we want to make a better National Health Service for cur patients, some GPs have to resort to the low-level propaganda from which my hon. Friend and I have suffered.

Nurses (Regrading Appeals)

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nurses regrading appeals in the Leicestershire health district.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The grading appeals are being dealt with under a long-standing agreement between the management and staff sides of the general Whitley council on procedures for settling differences over NHS employees' conditions of service. Detailed arrangements for operating the agreement are for local decision.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the director of personnel of the Leicestershire health authority that the appeal procedures are a major distraction from the work of the National Health Service? Does he also agree that in processing the 1,500 appeals that have been made it will take up to two years—until mid-1991—to clear the backlog, which will be a substantial


hardship for those who have appealed? Why does he not just allow those appeals and enable the nurses to get the salaries that they so obviously deserve?

Mr. Freeman: More than 500,000 posts in the National Health Service were subject to regrading last year. Some nurses have appealed, and those appeals are progressing at local level under a procedure agreed with the trade unions. The vast majority of nurses are satisfied with their new grading and pay last year went up by an average of 18 per cent. as a result.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that whereas under the last Labour Government nurses' pay was actually cut, under the Conservative Administration it has increased by 44 per cent., including a rise of 25 per cent. in the past two years?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The statistics show that in the five years to 1979 nurses' pay went down in real terms by 21 per cent.

British Medical Association

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what matters were discussed at the last meeting with the chairman of the British Medical Association.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I last met the chairman of the BMA formally on 22 February when I discussed with him the remuneration of hospital doctors. I have since then met the general medical services committee's negotiators on 4 May to discuss the remuneration of GPs under the new GP contract.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the current advertising campaign with the chairman of the BMA and point out that there are so many inaccuracies in it that it is difficult to believe that those responsible for it have even bothered to read the White Paper? Will he seek a further meeting so that he can present a copy of the White Paper to the chairman, together with one for the chairman's advertisers, so that they can reprint the adverts but this time tell the truth?

Mr. Clarke: I was astonished that just three days after the BMA said that it wanted to see me and to have discussions, those advertisements were produced. I was equally astonished that the chairman of the BMA has kept saying that he entirely shares the Government's aims as set out in the preface to the White Paper, and that he and most of his colleagues believe that there is a great deal of good in the White Paper and want us to experiment with and pilot the rest, but followed that with advertisements containing not one word about those positive sentiments and a lot of totally untrue allegations which are simply designed to alarm elderly and chronically sick patients. I should like the BMA to stick to its more constructive proposals and to have a formal word with me about the White Paper for the first time since I presented it to the BMA.

Mr. Hind: How can the BMA, the doctors' trade union, describe the NHS as,
underfunded, undermined and under threat",

when the Government have increased spending on the NHS since 1979 from £8 billion to £26 billion, which includes a substantial rise in doctors' pay? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the advertising campaign is misleading and that it is ovepriced, overwrought and certainly over the top?

Mr. Clarke: I do not criticise the BMA for using advertising agencies appropriately, but I advise it not to leave the text entirely to the copywriters. It is best to give instructions to the agency about what one wishes to say that is positive and then to make sure that the text is written by someone who has read and understood the proposals. The BMA has not followed either rule. My hon. Friend's slogan in certainly as effective as that of the BMA.
We all agree that the NHS needs more money, although the Government have increased spending on it by 40 per cent. in real terms since we came to power. That money will have the best effect for the patient if it is spent more sensibly and by a better-run Health Service. I am still waiting to hear what positive ideas the BMA might have for improving the running of the Health Service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not GPs in Kent up in arms over the Secretary of State's proposals—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Kent. Is opting out a solution to the problems of the people of Sevenoaks, who face the closure of Emily Jackson house and the rundown of acute services at Sevenoaks hospital? What about the League of Friends at Sevenoaks, which raised £100,000 for acute service support facilities but finds that that money has been wasted? What about the Tory Members from Kent who bleat to their constituents about what they are doing in Westminster but vote with the Government on all these stupid proposals about budget cuts?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's new guise as a man of Kent is intriguing but I suggest that he should do a little more homework on the county before he launches into local politics there in competition with my hon. Friends.
Expressions of interest in self-governing hospitals will come to me and my Department only at the end of this month. They are expressions of interest by doctors, managers and those involved in the hospitals who can see the potential of our proposals to improve the service in their area and give them a greater ability to control what happens in Sevenoaks or wherever. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see whether that is pursued in Sevenoaks. Those who are interested will enter into a process of discussion with us so that we can ensure that any hospitals which become self-governing will raise the quality of service for the people whom they serve.

Mr. Duffy: What will be the Secretary of State's response to the BMA representatives who voiced the concern of their colleagues, notably in Sheffield, that patients most in need of care, such as the chronically sick and the elderly, stand to be penalised through budgetary considerations arising out of his new proposals?

Mr. Clarke: People in Sheffield are still complaining about the contract. Frankly, they would be well advised to take the advice of their negotiators who are commending a package that is fair to doctors and will pave the way for a big improvement in the quality of the family doctor service in this country. The hon. Gentleman's comments on the elderly and chronically sick are the opposite to the truth. There is a greater variety in the quality and range of


service provided for the elderly and chronically sick than there is for most other people. The introduction of the new systems of clinical audit and charging district health authorities with the responsibility to use their money to most effect for the services that local residents need most will have the effect of raising the overall quality of care for the elderly and chronically sick. The scares about them are part of the background to the dispute over the new contract for GPs, which I hope is now resolved.

Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, bearing in mind the assessment of Kent by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to spend his time looking after his own constituency in Cumbria? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree further that all doctors in Kent have had the opportunity to consult their patients and that many of them have expressed approval of the new plans, and that, where there is interest in self-governing hospitals, it is because they believe that it will be in the interests of the provision of better service for the people of Kent?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the attempt by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to be a latter-day Wat Tyler and raise the population of Kent will be highly unsuccessful. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that many people are interested in the proposals. Among them are medical staff and others in Kent. Kent has a tradition of being an extremely go-ahead county in the forefront of many reforms in medical care and social services. Many people in Kent will be eager to see the opportunities that our White Paper gives them for improving their ability to deliver good quality services.

Mr. Robin Cook: When the Secretary of State next meets BMA representatives, will he answer their frequent questions about when he will respond to the Griffiths report on community care? Is he aware of the stark contrast between pushing through his proposals, which are opposed by everybody in the medical profession, and the year that he has taken sitting on the Griffiths report, which is supported by the health profession? Did he note the inquest last week into the death of Beverley Lewis who, blind from rubella, starved to death in the community? How many more scandals must there be before the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that a growing number of elderly and handicapped people in the community need better community care, and need it urgently?

Mr. Clarke: For 10 years we have been giving priority to the needs of elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. There has been the most enormous development in community services both in the National Health Service and local authorities over that time. As far as I can recall, the Labour party did nothing in that respect. We set up the Griffiths committee and we are now considering its extremely detailed proposals. I tell the BMA, as I tell everybody else, that we will report soon with our conclusions. It is an important and extremely complex problem, and we must determine how best to take forward the continuing development of good quality community services in this country.

Mr. Maples: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the chairman of the BMA, will he draw his attention to the enormous variations in unit costs

throughout the NHS, which are clearly shown by the Department of Health's own performance indicators? Will he point out that they clearly show how much room for improved performance there is in the NHS and that the proposals for an internal market are designed to achieve that improvement?

Mr. Clarke: I certainly will. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that high costs do not always mean the best quality of care and that it is possible to achieve extremely good quality at a reasonable cost and thereby extend the service that we give to patients. In an internal market we will ensure that far more is known than ever before about high quality care, what the variations in cost are and why, and then place doctors and managers in a much better position to make sensible decisions about how to maximise good quality care for their patients.

"Working for Patients"

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will pay a visit to the Glasgow, Central constituency in the next few weeks to meet local doctors in order to discuss the White Paper "Working for Patients".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Allen: That is a disappointing answer. Scottish Members of Parliament and, above all, my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will be particularly disappointed. As the Secretary of State is not to go to Glasgow, will he get in touch with and make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and ask him to ensure that the two dermatology wards at the royal infirmary in the Glasgow, Central constituency are kept open, as he plans to close both wards on Friday?

Mr. Clarke: First, I regard the Vale of Glamorgan as having been won in part by a campaign of untruths about the Health Service report. The local general practitioners, then in dispute about their contracts, persuaded some people that there was a threat that the Health Service was going to be privatised, or something of the kind. I accept that that influenced the result. In my experience, such campaigns cannot run for very long. I do not believe that they will run again in Glasgow, Central now that matters have already moved on a great deal since the last election. I advise the electors of Glasgow to beware of people from Nottingham who suddenly take an interest in dermatology in Glasgow for party political reasons.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if he reconsidered his decision to visit Glasgow, Central, he would be welcome in my constituency of Tayside, North to meet my GPs and discuss the changes proposed in the White Paper, particularly because the money will follow the patients? Cottage hospitals and other popular hospitals in Scotland can be kept open by the doctors directing the patients to them.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's invitation. I have held three meetings in Scotland on the National Health Service White Paper and I found an extremely interesting reaction. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), are


responsible for delivering health care in Scotland. I know that they are pointing out to their colleagues in the Health Service the great potential advantages that our reforms open up for them.

Dr. Reid: I should like to express my deep, heartfelt and sincere regret at the fact that the Secretary of State is not to visit Glasgow, Central. If he does visit, I hope that he will be just as effective from everyone's point of view as he was in the Vale of Glamorgan.
If the Secretary of State goes to Glasgow, Central, would he care to take a 50p bus trip up the road to Motherwell to meet doctors from the health improvement service campaign for Lanarkshire? Will he have the guts to tell them to their faces what he and his colleagues have called them today, unscrupulous liars who are misleading the population, or will he recant and accept that they are non-political and fair minded people who welcome one or two of his proposals, but who conclude that in general the proposals will be the beginning of the end of the NHS? When he is in Glasgow, Central and Lanarkshire, will he explain why everyone in Britain with an interest in the Health Service is a liar and out of step, except him?

Mr. Clarke: I am always glad to visit Glasgow, and I did so often in my previous job, because it is one of the most successful examples of urban regeneration in the country in its inner-city area. It has benefited considerably from the revival of the British economy and the Government's enterprise in restoring life and prosperity to the city centre.
The hon. Gentleman said that the doctors conceded that there was a great deal to welcome in the White Paper. They came out with some slogan or other which the hon. Gentleman repeated. I must point out to the doctors that their advertisements are patently untrue. When I meet individual doctors in Motherwell or elsewhere, I find that they avoid the question when I try to get them to justify the statements put out in the name of their association. That is no way to campaign on a serious subject like the National Health Service. I welcome constructive discussion with doctors from Motherwell or anywhere else.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many elderly and other vulnerable people in Glasgow, Central who are caused unnecessary distress by unfounded suggestions that the Government intend to privatise the Health Service? Does he agree that Opposition Members who try to fan such deliberate untruths are unscrupulously and uncaringly exploiting those vulnerable people for their own sordid political advantage?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that it will work to their advantage as they believe it will. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is what they are doing at the moment. However, I cannot see how they will defend the Vale of Glamorgan when they must face a situation where there has been no privatisation, where a great deal more control and influence has been placed in the hands of local doctors in relation to local services and where the situation is plainly improving for patients. As we are getting on well with the implementation, I remain confident that that will be the position by the time we reach the next general election.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Returning to the original point about the dermatology units at Glasgow royal infirmary,

will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to speak to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland because this is a vital issue? Does he realise that dermatology units have been quite separate from other wards in Scotland for more than three decades and that apparently none of the consultants involved have had discussions with Greater Glasgow health board on the matter? Would it not make more sense to await the outcome of the strategic review which was planned in 1984?

Mr. Clarke: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the representations that have been made on this important subject today, particularly when they come from an hon. Member who comes from north of the border and somewhat nearer to Glasgow than the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) who previously raised the matter. This is not a matter for me, but it is a serious matter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering seriously.

Women Doctors

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners contract will affect women doctors.

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the response by general practitioners to the new contract announced to the House on 5 May.

Mr. Mellor: Women doctors are an asset to partnerships because a number of patients prefer to see a woman doctor. Our proposals for formalising part-time working and job-sharing arrangements will help women doctors seeking a reduced commitment—for example, because of family responsibilities. Women general practitioners will also benefit from retention of partnership average list sizes for calculating entitlement to basic practice allowance and the reduced threshold for full basic practice allowance from 1,500 patients previously proposed to 1,200.
On the overall contract, the negotiators undertook, as part of the agreement between us on the major outstanding issues, to commend the new contract to the annual conference of local medical committees on 21 and 22 June.

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful for that helpful answer, but does my hon. and learned Friend accept that despite the BMA's propaganda, which was designed to mislead and frighten patients, the general practitioners' contract will formalise part-time working arrangements for lady doctors, help with job sharing and ease conditions for locum assistance?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, the contract will do all those things.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who were unhappy about the first proposal for the contract warmly welcome the flexibility that Ministers showed in putting forward the revised proposals which have now been accepted by the BMA negotiators? Is he further aware that those of us who pressed for changes now expect the BMA collectively to settle on the matter?

Mr. Mellor: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. We listened to what was said about the draft contract, including representations from hon. Members who had met their general practitioners. We listened and changes were made on both sides. This is a fair deal and I trust that the local medical committees will endorse it.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that, although the new proposals are slightly superior to the unbelievably crass original proposals, the typical woman doctor who joins a general practice now has a list size of about 350, on which the change from 1,500 to 1,200 will have no bearing? Does he further agree that, although averaging will now be allowed, women doctors will probably not be allowed to become partners, and, since 50 per cent. of those now leaving medical schools are women, they will hit a brick wall and will become only employees, not partners, in general practice?

Mr. Mellor: None of that is right. Averaging will remove the principal point that the hon. Gentleman made. The BMA negotiators have agreed the contract. I appreciate that that means that the hon. Gentleman's fox has been shot—but there it is.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's reply, but will he confirm that, in practice, a two-doctor practice may be divided into three part-time practices, similar to one that we saw in Newcastle recently which wants to continue to give good service to its patients?

Mr. Mellor: I shall confirm that point in writing to the hon. Gentleman, but it sounds right to me.

Mr. Favell: Having heard what my hon. and learned Friend has to say, is it not now clear that the only doctor, whether man or woman, who has anything to fear from the new BMA contract is the bad or the idle?

Mr. Mellor: For the first time we have what many progressive doctors have been asking for for a long time —a performance-related contract that rewards initiative and those doctors who offer more services to their patients, not just those who are sick but those who need screening and better services to maintain themselves in good health. The capitation arrangement of 60 per cent. will ensure that there is a proper consumerist approach within the Health Service—and not before time.

Private Medicine

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the impact of private medicine on the National Health Service; and what have been the findings.

Mr. Freeman: Three studies have been commissioned from Sheffield university. These studies have been published and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. We welcome the private sector's contribution, which adds choice and flexibility in health care.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister did not say what the findings were. He is aware that adequate research has not been done into the impact of the private system on the National Health Service. Is he aware that we really must get away from assertions and have adequate research? Is

he further aware that the findings of that research would be that the private health service badly affects the NHS? Would the Minister agree with that?

Mr. Freeman: No, I would not agree. The research shows a very modest loss, of 0.3 per cent., of nurses each year from the Health Service to the private sector. The official Labour party policy, just published, is that Labour remains firmly opposed to the private sector. That is based on dogma. The private sector is complementary to the NHS. It offers choice and flexibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had a number of meetings. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Prime Minister recall that three months ago she said that we were proceeding towards zero inflation? Will she take this opportunity to update the House on progress?

The Prime Minister: The steps that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken will deal with the problem—[Interruption.]—and get inflation down and on a downward course again. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 8 per cent. was low for Labour. It is unacceptably high for us.

Mr. Holt: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Holt: Following my right hon. Friend's successful visit to Teeside in November 1987, when she met the then unemployed Mr. Eric Fletcher, may I ask if she has seen last week's Middlesbrough Evening Gazette in which Mr. Fletcher is reported to be "doing smashing"? He is now buying his council house, has money in his bank and is grateful for the day he met the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I understand that, on my advice, he took a good training course, that he did well on that course, that he has a job and that due to his own vigorous efforts, he has done well in that job. He is to be warmly congratulated. So should the Government, on having the right policies which enabled him to do that and which are bringing increasing prosperity to the north-east, among all other regions.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying last week that we picked up our inflationary tendency by trying to shadow the deutschmark? Will she say exactly who made the decision to shadow the deutschmark?

The Prime Minister: The policies are the policies of the Government—[Interruption.]—asare all our policies, and they have been infinitely more successful on inflation than the 26 per cent. that was reached under Labour.

Mr. Kinnock: So, the Prime Minister is saying that the reason we have 8 per cent. inflation and have picked up that tendency is that the Government, under her leadership, made a complete mess of it?

The Prime Minister: No. A complete mess would be the way to describe what Labour Members did when they were in office.

Mr. Onslow: As my right hon. Friend continues her commendable resistance to the threats of Socialist harmonisation by the bureaucrats in Brussels, may I ask her to seek also to promote some European initiatives to protect rain forests in Brazil and elephants in Africa?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. We have policies to help protect rain forests in Brazil through our aid programme and through training people in Brazil and elsewhere to do precisely that. As for elephants and the worrying tendency to sell ivory, we agree with the international convention and we shall be raising the matter again at the next Environment Council. We believe that the sale of new ivory should be stopped altogether.

Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister realise that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees, patients and staff are all finding it difficult to convince the Secretary of State for Health to scrap his White Paper "Working for Patients"? What plans does the Prime Minister have for recovering the £11 million of unpaid bills left by people who have abused the private facilities of the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: The White Paper "Working for Patients" will improve the Health Service by giving hospitals more choice and more say in their own affairs, and by giving doctors more choice in running their own budgets. And there has been an enormous increase in resources from £8 billion to £25 billion per year, which has enabled doctors—finterruptionl If hon. Gentlemen cannot recognise correct accountancy, I am not in the least surprised. Perhaps they can raise the matter under the public expenditure survey, which shows that Labour spent £8 billion on the Health Service and that we are spending about between £24 billion and £25 billion now. That is the measure of the improvement to the Health Service.

Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report concerning the low level of prosecutions and fines related to litter offences? Has she studied also the findings of several reports of the Select Committee on the Environment showing a similar situation in respect of very serious environmental offences? Does she agree that greater concern should be shown by the prosecuting authorities and by magistrates?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report—and clearly the situation varies greatly from one part of the country to another. In areas where the local people, magistrates, the Tidy Britain group and the prosecuting authorities are greatly concerned to have a tidy Britain, there is much more success in achieving that than in other places. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecuting authorities and magistrates should have regard to the need for a tidy Britain, and I hope that there will be a sufficient number of prosecutions and sufficiently severe sentences.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole nation will welcome yesterday's announcement by the Foreign Secretary that he had renegotiated his treaty with the Prime Minister, so that the decision on the European monetary system will be taken by the Government as a whole? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether that decision will be taken on the basis of a majority vote or will it be, as usual, subject to her personal veto?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has no experience of government. Under collective responsibility, we are all responsible.

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilshire: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government have no plans to reintroduce secondary picketing, to renationalise British Telecom, or to give away our nuclear deterrent in exchange for today's equivalent of a piece of paper from Munich? Does she agree that such policies amount to a cynical attempt to trade beliefs for votes, and if implemented would spell disaster for this country?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that we have no plans to reintroduce secondary picketing, to re-nationalise British Telecom, or to get rid of the nuclear deterrent. All our policies are sound—sound at home and sound for the best defence of Britain—and there is not a cynical policy among them.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that will be given to the report in today's Daily Mail that she has joined the fight against the extinction of the African elephant? However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-important convention on international trade in endangered species is not due to take place until October and that many elephants may be killed before then? Will she use her influence to cut through the red tape and to secure immediate action on that very important issue?

The Prime Minister: As my noble Friend, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside announced yesterday, having just returned from an official visit to Kenya, he will call for concerted European support for a total ban at the next Council meeting of Environment Ministers, which takes place in Luxembourg on 8 June, considerably before the international convention is due to meet.

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grocott: The whole House will appreciate the reason for the Prime Minister's total opposition to television viewers being able to see her performance at Question Time. Can she confirm that that reason is that this is one photo opportunity that she cannot stage-manage?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks his customary poppycock.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the indication by the Secretary of State for Wales of his preference for a different emphasis in economic regional policies, will the Prime Minister confirm that the entire reason for the existence of the Welsh Office—and of the Scottish Office—is to enable a different policy to be pursued where circumstances dictate it? Will she tell the House whether she has full confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have. The policies that are being pursued and are bringing such prosperity to Wales are Conservative Government policies, and I hope that everyone is very grateful and thankful for them.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mendacious and inaccurate campaign being waged by the 13ritish Medical Association suggests some deficiency in diagnostic ability on the part of the doctors who are contributing to it? If their medical judgment is as bad as their political judgment, would not patients be well advised to find another doctor, and quickly?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland have negotiated a very good contract with the doctors, and I hope that they will in general accept it. Among other things, the White Paper suggested that people who were not satisfied with their general practitioner could move from one to another more easily. Under Conservative Governments there have been more general practitioners, so the number of each list has gone down by about 300, giving doctors more time to spend with each patient.

Child Sexual Abuse

Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to increase the amount of money being spent by Her Majesty's Government's Departments into research into the sexual abuse of children; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: We will continue to support research into child sex abuse. We have already increased our expenditure, and further research proposals will be considered in the light of the knowledge gained from existing studies.

Mr. Allen: Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that in 10 years her Government, through the Department of Health, has put just £1 million into this difficult and sensitive subject? Will she consider establishing a national institute for the study of the sexual abuse of children, as has been done in Canada, Australia, America and many other countries? The victims need help and the perpetrators need to be prevented. For a very small

amount of money the Prime Minister could do a great deal of good. Will she take that suggestion away and consider it?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is a question of finding extra money. Well over £800 million is provided for basic research. It would be quite easy to put into that sphere and perhaps take a little away from others, but we must decide our priorities.
The real difficulty, as I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know, is that of designing and conducting research and obtaining incontrovertible results. We need to ensure that projects are considered properly before they are commissioned.

Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bury district health authority will shortly be appointing two additional consultants, thus bringing to 16 the number of such consultants appointed in the area in the past five years? Will she welcome that contribution to the Health Service?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are these consultants concerned with the sexual abuse of children?

Mr. Burt: No.

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Macdonald: Can I ask the Prime Minister to state her complete confidence in the prediction made by the Chancellor as recently as two months ago that inflation this year would peak at 8 per cent. and not go higher?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our efforts to attack inflation will be infinitely more successful than those of the last Labour Government. The Labour party was the party of inflation and when it had got inflation up to 25 per cent. had not even the resources to inflation-proof pensioners' pensions.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the people of Afghanistan managed to see off the Red Army without the need for nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; with a good deal of help from other people.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS

Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Ann


Widdecombe, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Terence L. Higgins and Mr. Gerald Bermingham, presented a Bill to make provision for the wearing of protective headgear by under-eighteen year old

riders of equine animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Take Away Food (Biodegradable Packaging)

Mr. James Paice: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require food sold as "take away" to be packaged in materials which shall be biodegradable and for connected purposes.
The problem of litter has quite rightly become the subject of much attention both within the House and throughout the country. Many initiatives have been suggested and some have been tried, but I think that the whole House will agree that there are no easy answers to the problem. Indeed, even within the food and packaging industries, there are different views, although there are efforts by the Industry Commitee for Packaging and the Environment to develop a policy.
The Bill which I seek to introduce today aims at one source of litter—the take-away food outlet. I wish to emphasise that this does not necessarily mean all fast food outlets, where, of course, food is often consumed on the premises. I address the specific problem of food sold to be eaten away from the premises, sometimes at home but more often walking along a street, in a car or in a lay-by. As we all know, this packaging is often discarded where it is finished with. It is a disgusting and disgraceful habit, but it happens.
Obviously, litter dropped on streets is relatively easy to clear up. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has introduced a Bill to require the owners of such outlets to clear up outside their premises. It is not so easy, though, outside the built-up areas. Anyone driving through the countryside today can only be horrified at the amount of litter which lies on motorway verges, around lay-bys and picnic areas, in ditches and elsewhere. The majority of this material is the ubiquitous plastic, and it will remain where it falls for many months or years. Some effort is being made to introduce photodegradable material, but this only breaks down under ultra-violet light and we all know that, with the exception of the last two weeks, in this country that is a pretty rare commodity. Anyway, the litter often lies out of direct sunlight. Such a breakdown is not complete but only achieves fragmentation into dust, which remains as plastic in the soil.
There are, of course, arguments against using fully biodegradable materials, by which I mean materials which can be fully broken down by micro-organisms in the British climate. There is the argument that it will encourage litter dropping and discourage attempts to increase responsibility. I believe that to be a mistaken argument. Litter dropping is happening anyway and biodegradation does not take place instantaneously, as any responsible person will realise. I believe that this is a realistic approach to the problem.
The second argument relates to the plastics industry, which has developed recycling techniques. It believes that manufacturing waste of biodegradable materials is not recyclable and that used materials which have been recovered cannot be recycled. That is partially true, but it ignores the fact that such plastics derive from oil. Although recycling is a welcome effort to improve oil usage, the fact remains that we are talking about a finite resource being used for its primary function for perhaps

five or 10 minutes. It seems absurd that we use the container for those five or 10 minutes but that it will lie in or on the ground for five or 50 years.
The third argument relates to disposal. Biodegradable materials are less stable as landfill materials where future buildings may be constructed. That is a short-sighted argument. The fact is that we are desperately short of landfill sites in this country. We cannot go on for ever with that method of disposal. We need to look at alternatives. Primarily, that will be incineration, for which biodegradable materials are well suited.
Advances in science now mean that totally biodegradable materials are available, or will soon become available. They are often made of plant material. Paper and cardboard are long established but usually need to be coated with a film to ensure adequate protection of the food. Such a film is usually a plastic, such as polythene, which is not biodegradable. Furthermore, it prevents penetration by water and micro-organisms to the paper or card. It must also be realised that some 80 per cent. of packaging board is recycled material, anyway. Wimpy has ceased to use polystyrene packaging. It has introduced cardboard. Kentucky Fried Chicken tells us that 80 per cent. of its range of packaging will soon be described as biodegradable. Both organisations, and others looking into it, deserve credit for that move.
Perhaps one of the most exciting products coming on to the market is Biopol, a plastic derived from a glucose feedstock, not from oil. As such, it is totally biodegradable. The feedstock is totally renewable and replenishable, often by the economies of the Third world, as well as by European agriculture. Production costs are still high, but it is anticipated that, as output increases, costs will reduce considerably.
Biopol can be used as a coating film for paper and card. There are other products now being developed which are totally biodegradable, either as a container themselves or as a film coating. It cannot be denied that costs are much higher than for styrofoam or polythene or the other plastics, but it is rapidly becoming recognised, both in this House and outside, that if we are to take care of our environment and of our finite oil resources we have to accept the costs. In any case, we pay what is often a n exorbitant amount for a glorified hamburger. A penny or two more on the packaging is of little significance.
Much as I would wish it otherwise, this is not a trail-blazing Bill. The state legislature of Minneapolis has already started down the same road, and others are looking closely at it. I hope very much that the House will ensure that Britain is not far behind.
We cannot abdicate our responsibility in this area. Public opinion is quite rightly focused on litter, on the visual and physical environment and on the use of the earth's scarce resources. There is no single answer, but I believe that my Bill will not only do something about the litter problem in areas where collection is unrealistic but that it will also stimulate the use of renewable resources in today's throw-away world.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Paice, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. James Cran, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Porter and Mrs. Gillian Shephard.

TAKE AWAY FOOD (BIODEGRADABLE PACKAGING)

Mr. James Paice accordingly presented a Bill to require food sold as 'take away' to be packaged in materials which shall be biodegradable and for connected purposes, And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Opposition Day

11TH ALLOTTED DAY

Inner Cities

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns this Government's total neglect of the inner city areas of Britain which has led to a reduction in investment, a decline in the quality of housing and schools, a deterioration in adequate health care, an increase in poverty and a growth in crime; and therefore calls upon the Government to work in partnership with local authorities, to ensure the increases in both private investment and public enterprise which inner cities so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hattersley: I have written to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister apologising for the fact that, before the debate is over, I must leave for the inner city of Birmingham which in part I represent. I offer a general apology to the House for my absence later, as well as offering it to you personally and to the Minister.
Two years ago, on the stairs inside Downing street, the prime Minister promised action on the inner cities—a sudden and uncharacteristic enthusiasm that came after eight years of wilful and deliberate neglect. For a moment, it seemed that the Prime Minister had at last accepted her duty to be Prime Minister of all the country, but our hopes were confounded. Life in the inner cities continues to deteriorate relative to life in the rest of the United Kingdom, and sometimes even in absolute terms. It deteriorates because the Government's approach to the inner cities reflects all the inadequacies of modern Conservatism.
Tory inner-city policy is based on bone-headed Conservative dogma. Public expenditure is cut when it should be increased; market forces are expected to provide results that they are incapable of producing; public enterprise is stifled when it should be encouraged. Tory inner-city policy is autocratic. Decisions that would best be taken locally are imposed by Whitehall, and initiatives that should be organised in partnership with those who live in and represent the inner cities are exclusively taken and managed by bureaucrats.
Tory inner-city policy shows contempt for genuine racial equality. Most of the black and Asian British live and work in inner cities. At best, the Government patronise those British citizens and at worst they discriminate against them. They think of them as a problem to be contained, not as men and women who should be given a fair share of national resources.
Eight years ago, we debated Lord Scarman's judgment on inner-city policy. In that debate the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Whitelaw, described the need to allocate resources to disadvantaged groups but he refused to promise that the resources that he regarded as necessary would be provided. It was a wise precaution. Paragraph 6.32 of the Scarman Report was explicit:
It is clear from the evidence of ethnic minority deprivation … that, if the balance of racial disadvantage is to be redressed, as it must be, positive action is required.


The Labour party gave unqualified support to that recommendation. On behalf of the Labour party I used these words: we do not ask for the black and Asian British
to be given better employment prospects than their white contemporaries. I simply ask that they be given the same prospects and opportunities. To achieve that end special action is needed."—[Official Report, 10 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 1012.]
To achieve that end, special action is needed. We believed that in 1981 and we believe it today.
Tory inner-city policy is above all else cynical. It is targeted not on the needs of inner cities themselves but on the requirements of Conservative party public relations, intended to soften the callous image with the illusion of compassion. Anyone who doubts that judgment need do no more than examine the wholly bogus announcement of the so-called "Action for Cities". That fraudulent prospectus, published over a year ago, was advertised as a programme that would invest £3 billion in the inner cities. Closer examination shows that the initiative provided £100 million of new investment, 5 per cent. of the total that the Government claimed. The rest was old money, dressed up to look like new. In fact, over the 10 years of Conservative Government, the inner cities have lost, rather than gained, public investment and public spending. Between 1981 and 1987, the seven urban programme partnership areas received £770 million in partnership money; at the same time, they lost £850 million in rate support grant.
I suspect that the Government will attempt to justify these reductions by claiming that the emphasis of their inner-city policy has shifted from social expenditure to economic regeneration. In a moment, I want to examine the outcome of that regeneration policy, on the terms and against the criteria which the Government choose. One thing is absolutely clear: the inner cities are in desperate need of increased public expenditure—on new houses and the repair of old ones, on new schools and additional teachers in them, and on hospitals and amenities. Until that money is spent, the quality of life in the inner cities will continue to deteriorate. What is more, industrial investment will not be made in areas of visible dereliction, yet the Government continue to reduce the quality of life and increase the obvious dereliction in the inner cities.
I adduce one example, from my experience in the inner city of Birmingham. For 10 years, Government policy on the renovation and improvement of houses has, at each state of its revision and development, made it more difficult for money to be spent on improving inner-city domestic property. There is no doubt, as I know to my cost from wrestling with the new proposals with the Birmingham corporation and the residents of my constituency, that the latest proposals for improvement grants will make it more difficult than ever before for inner-city dwellers to receive the money which makes their houses habitable.
I do not suggest for a minute that the problems of the inner cities are solely the products of Conservative policy. They are largely the product of history. The industries which once made the inner cities prosperous either no longer exist or have changed their form. Small companies have been replaced by large, and the largest companies have developed on sites which are at the margins of, or outside, the cities. The large houses which once were owned by prosperous inner-city families have been broken

down into multiple occupation. A cumulative deterioration has set in which makes the inner cities a unique problem.
The inner cities are unique not because they suffer from disadvantages which are unknown outside them; they are unique because all the known disadvantages—unemployment, inadequate housing, increased crime, shortage of services and amenities—are to be found within them. Because all these disadvantages are concentrated within the same area, they breed off each other and multiply.
This concentration of disadvantage can be counteracted only by Government action, and that action has not been taken. In the time available to me in this short debate, I propose to deal with only four of the causes of inner-city crisis, beginning with the first essential requirement putting the iner cities back to work. That was the promise of the Government's inner-city initiatives, and that promise has been broken.
If the promise had been kept, unemployment in the inner city would have fallen at a faster rate than national unemployment, but during the past seven years unemployment in the inner cities has fallen 6 per cent. more slowly than it has in the economy as a whole. The reason is clear: the Government believe that the market, timidly influenced by marginal financial incentives, can solve the inner cities' problems. It was the market that caused the inner cities' problems, and only direct intervention can solve them.
This is demonstrated by the results of the urban development grant—the city grant. The inner cities need jobs that provide employment for unemployed men and women who live there, yet of the permanent jobs assisted by urban development grants, only 25 per cent. were new to the national economy. The rest were old jobs, which had been relocated to the inner cities and had, in general, brought their old employees with them. Only 18 per cent. of the UDG jobs were taken by men and women who had been unemployed previously. If the UDG has done little or nothing to help inner-city unemployment, that is at least better than the results of the urban development corporations. They have driven traditional jobs, the jobs that employ local residents, out of the areas, just as they have driven out the traditional residents.
I take my example from London. The London Docklands development corporation has forced 84 firms to relocate out of the area—forced them by the use of the compulsory purchase order, which the LDDC is able to operate from an autocratic position with an authority that no local government institution would be allowed to employ. The new businesses that are replacing those companies forced out of London docklands have not provided employment for displaced local residents. The Tower Hamlets example is particularly revealing. Before the development of the corporation, firms in the borough employed 35 per cent. of their work force from residents of the borough. New firms that arrived after 1982 employ only 13 per cent. of local labour. It is not surprising that London docklands boroughs now account for an increasing proportion of London's unemployed. The net result of Government policy has been quite opposite to the results that they have prophesied and claimed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: For eight years, I was a councillor with the London borough of Lewisham, one of the riparian boroughs that made up the Docklands


Joint Committee, between 1974 and 1981. In those seven years, how many new houses and jobs did that committee bring to the docklands area?

Mr. Hattersley: A great many more than have been brought to it since then. I bow to, and am deeply impressed by, the hon. Gentleman's wide experience of these matters. If he thinks I am wrong in what I have just asserted, he had better say so. If he thinks that the LDDC is not bringing in companies that do not employ local labour, he had better say so. If the figures produced by the development corporation, which show that most of the new jobs are bringing in men and women from outside, are wrong, he had better say so.

Mr. Bennett: My question, which the right hon. Gentleman clearly heard, was how many houses and how many jobs the Docklands Joint Committee brought into being between 1974 and 1981. The simple answer is that it sat and talked and did nothing.

Mr. Hattersley: Nobody accepts that for a second. More important than that, it did not drive out jobs. I repeat my contention that, on the evidence provided by the LDDC itself, it is effectively driving jobs out of the docklands boroughs.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Docklands Joint Committee produced a strategic plan, which in my constituency would have meant that some 15,000 to 20,000 people would have been housed in publicly owned housing on land that has now largely been sold off to private developers? Furthermore, of the additional 20,000 jobs in the LDDC area, about which the Government boast, 15,000 are brought in from outside, with a net loss of 6,000 jobs over the whole area. Does that not show that the LDDC is not serving the needs of local people?

Mr. Hattersley: It shows more than that. It shows one of the more unsavoury aspects of Conservative party tactics. When it was obsessed with private enterprise taking over these matters, and with giving private enterprise authoritarian powers by creating the LDDC, it thought it wise to abuse the institutions that were to be replaced. That is the normal technique of Conservative policy, which shows the shabby nature of its policies and attitudes, as well as their failure, which I continue to describe simply by relying on the figures.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not now, but I will give way in a moment.
The jobs that the urban development corporation is providing for inner-city residents are almost invariably the jobs that those residents least want. The London Docklands development corporation, after much pressure from the boroughs, has now agreed that 4 per cent. of the new jobs in its area should be geared to the needs and attract local residents. That total is disgracefully inadequate. The jobs themselves are likely to be still more inadequate. A report into Canary wharf concluded that most of the new jobs created by the corporation would be

part-time low-paid and concerned with cleaning and catering. It is not surprising that the LDDC chose to suppress that report rather than allow it to be published.
The epitaph on the Government's record on creating jobs in inner cities is provided by the unemployment statistics in the 44 inner-city authorities for which comprehensive figures are available. In only 14 of the 44 authorities did employment improve as compared with the national average. In four, the numbers of unemployed were higher in absolute terms than when the Government came to power.
The second task that the Government set themselves was to improve housing conditions in the inner cities. Housing conditions have deteriorated. During the last six years for which figures are available, homelessness has increased in the programme authority by an average of 63 per cent., outstripping the national increase in homelessness by 14 per cent. The total stock of council housing has fallen by almost 2 per cent. That reduction is a direct product of Government policies—their refusal to allow councils to build the homes which were necessary to replace those which were sold. The private rented accommodation which has been built in the inner cities, particularly in London, is wildly beyond the means of the traditional inner-city family. For the typical low-income family to be decently housed, we need a programme of sustained municipal building. The Government will not provide it. They positively obstruct it because they are blinded by dogma to the real needs of the people.
The third need of the inner cities—both in terms of the lives of the men and women who live there and as an inducement to new industry to move into those areas—is a reduction in inner-city crime. Since the Government were elected, the whole country has been swamped by a crime wave of record proportion. The statistics of crime in the inner cities over the past 10 years is a savage indictment of Government policy, for much of the blame must lie with a Government who allow the acceleration of inner-city unemployment, cause the deterioration of inner-city housing, and, by their so-called social services review, deepen and extend inner-city poverty.
Anyone who doubts the relationship between deprivation and crime ought to read again Lord Scarman's report, which said:
There can be no doubt
that it is
a factor in the complex conditions which lie at the root of inner-city crime. The Government are responsible for those conditions and they must take responsibility for the crime which they create—crime of which the inner-city families are overwhelmingly innocent victims.
Let me remind the Government of the record. In the west midlands police division, which includes my constituency in the inner city of Birmingham, burglaries have increased by 49 per cent. since 1980 and wounding with intent has gone up 63 per cent. Assault on the person has increased by 75 per cent. That pattern is reproduced throughout the inner cities of Great Britain. In the past 10 years, recorded crime has grown by 47 per cent. in central Manchester. The incidence of recorded violent crime in central Leeds was up a staggering 89 per cent. for the first three months of this year, compared with the first three months of 1979. In central London, the figures are equally bad.
The Government came to power promising to crack down on crime and saying that they would combat and


overcome crime in inner cities. In Hackney, crime has increased by 50 per cent., in Lambeth by 40 per cent. and in Southwark by 30 per cent. No one doubts that poverty and despair breed crime. That is not to condone the increases but to explain them, and to condemn the Government on whom the responsibility, indeed the blame, for increasing crime figures must fall.
Fourthly, a year ago, the Government promised improved inner-city education. I hope that the Minister will tell us what form that improvement in inner-city education is to take. Is it suggested that opting out of the state system will help the inner-city schools? It will do quite the opposite. Inner-city schools will become the poor and neglected relatives of their suburban neighbours. Is it suggested that city technology colleges will help the inner cities? The nearest CTC to the inner city I represent is located in Solihull. In that borough, it is unlikely to do much to combat the problems with which CTCs are said to deal.
Education in the inner cities is expensive. There is a great need for extra facilities, nursery places, English as a second language teaching and special needs classes. The Government's record of expenditure on education budgets can be summed up in a single sentence. They abolished the Inner London education authority for spending too much on inner-city education. That is the true reflection of Government policy. They have adopted that policy and they have failed to help the inner cities because they do not care about them or understand them and because they are ideologically incapable of advancing policies that meet their needs.

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend probably knows that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is dealing with teacher shortages. In the words of the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, the shortages are "catastrophic". It is difficult to get Conservative Members even to admit that there are teacher shortages; they do not for a moment admit that there are teacher shortages on a grand scale in ILEA, which they are trying to abolish.

Mr. Hattersley: I say with the greatest affection for my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency in which I was born and brought up, that it seems a long time since he first made that point to me and I made a dangerous point in reply. I will make it again, notwithstanding his great experience of education and education trade unions. I believe, as he may believe too, that some special inducement must be made to bring teachers into the areas where teaching is most difficult. We are prepared to spend extra money in some schools on persuading teachers to spend time teaching Latin and Greek to small groups of boys and girls, so we should be prepared to spend extra money on persuading more teachers into the areas of greatest need to teach English as a second language to boys and girls and to deal with other special difficulties.
I sometimes get into trouble with my hon. Friend's union when I make that point, but I have made the point strongly and I will go on arguing for it, not to interfere with proper wage negotiations with teachers, but to defend what is necessary to help the people who teach, who want to help and who need help. They can be enabled to help only if we have a pay structure that reflects the particular problems of teaching in the central areas.

Mr. Favell: As a third native of Sheffield, perhaps I should join the party. We have heard at great length an attack on the Government's policies for dealing with the inner cities, but we have not heard one word about the Labour party's policies, apart from building more council housing and providing more social security. We have heard no other word of remedy from the Labour party.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is about to hear more than one word on our policies in the next five or six minutes. He and his party's Front Bench must understand that they have been in power for 10 years and that the whole focus of political debate for the next two or two and a half years will be on the inadequacies and failures of the Government's policies over the past 10 years. The scare stories about what has happened, from the Zinoviev letter to the groundnut scheme, will not work any longer. The Government will be judged by their record, and I have no doubt what the judgment will be.
To return to my previous point, the Government are, by their very nature, incapable of meeting the needs of the inner cities. I believe that the Prime Minister herself believes that the problems of the inner cities are intractable and are a necessary part of the divided society, which she positively welcomes and which she has done much to create. The Secretary of State for Social Security no doubt regards inner-city residents as the undeserving poor—the families who buy television sets when they have no right to expect the entertainment enjoyed by their more prosperous contemporaries. He will say of the inner cities that they are not so much poor as unequal. Unequal they certainly are, but other countries have tried to reduce that inequality, and have succeeded.
All our partners in Europe are taking positive steps to provide the jobs, the houses and the services that the inner cities need, and so is America. Those initiatives, which even in America involve a key role for public initiative, have been described by the Prime Minister as "Marxist". I know that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has impertinently asked the Prime Minister whether she has ever read any Marx. That is a question of staggering naivety. The Prime Minister never shows any evidence of ever having read anything, so why should we think that she has picked out Marx while she has neglected everybody else? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Neville Chamberlain?"] By comparison, Neville Chamberlain was a paragon of erudition, culture, literature and understanding.
The day will come when Government policy is based on something more respectable than prime ministerial ignorance and prime ministerial prejudice. That policy will be based not on dogma, but on an objective assessment of what can encourage the creation of jobs and the reduction in poverty. In consequence, it will be one of partnership. It will be a partnership between private investment and public enterprise; between national Government and local government; and between the people of the area and those agencies that are created to assist them. Partnership with local residents is essential.
If the national Government pursue policies—ranging from discrimatory immigration laws to the pauperisation of the young unemployed—which disadvantage the inner cities, the Government must expect the people who live there to feel suspicious about the initiatives that the Government take. If the Government fail utterly to meet the problems of the inner cities, they must not be surprised


if the inner cities feel despair and if that despair leads to the crime and vandalism that further accelerate inner-city decline.
Partnership has to be built around policies which are intended explicitly and specifically to help the people in the inner cities and the conditions that prevail there—not, for example, the inner-city landowners who are the only real beneficiaries of the enterprise zone scheme. We cannot afford silly little Government diktats that prevent local councils from insisting that inner-city firms provide employment for inner-city residents. We cannot afford stupid limitations on assistance to co-operatives and common ownership projects, when such new, local, small enterprises are exactly what the inner cities need. Above all, we cannot afford a doctrinal refusal to invest in inner-city services and inner-city infrastructure.
I vividly recall a meeting with the Birmingham chamber of commerce—a group of men and women who even in a good year would not want to see the return of a Labour Government. We were told by the Birmingham chamber of commerce that, if the Government did not show their faith in the inner cities by spending their money there, nothing would induce private enterprise to create the confidence that would enable them to provide the essential investment. The inner cities will not prosper while they are left to themselves and to the market—and that, I fear, means that they will not prosper until another Government are elected.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`welcomes recent falls in unemployment in the inner cities and the increasing level of investment in their regeneration; notes with approval the growing commitment of the private sector and the improved partnership between the private sector, voluntary organisations and central and local government in tackling inner city problems; and looks forward to continued progress under Action for Cities and other programmes designed to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom share fully in the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole.'
This is the second debate in little more than a week which suggests that the Opposition have become the victims of their own propaganda. Last week we had a debate on the alleged "decline" in manufacturing industry. About the only fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whom I am sorry not to see in his place today, could produce in support of his claim was that, although manufacturing investment was rising strongly, as he was forced to acknowledge, it was still marginally lower than in 1979. In my response I acknowledged that he had a small, modest point, and advised him to use it while he could because I did not think that he could depend on it much longer. I am glad to be able to tell the House that this morning we published the final estimates for the value of capital investment in manufacturing in 1988, and they show that manufacturing industry is not just higher than it was in 1979 but higher than the previous record figure.
The Opposition's motion contains the even more flimsy charge of total neglect of inner cities. Not surprisingly, the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not remotely substantiate or sustain that charge. Nor could it conceivably have

done so, as no previous Government have ever brought together such a comprehensive range of programmes as those which make up "Action for Cities" and its component parts in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. No previous Government have given the problem of urban regeneration so much emphasis by bringing together programmes in that way, or put so many resources behind measures to tackle the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £36 million that was provided when the "Action for Cities" campaign was launched in March 1988 as the total expenditure on the programmes of which it consisted. One year later, when I launched the reporting document, "Progress on Cities", about two and a half months ago, I was able to say that the estimate for those same programmes had risen to about £3·5 billion. It had risen by £0·5 billion between 1988 and 1989—far more than would have been needed to maintain the value of those programmes in real terms. If that is to be described as neglect, I can think of quite a few others who would like a share of it.

Mr. Richard Caborn: What was the reduction in the rate support grant for major cities in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister contrast that with the small injection of capital to which he has referred?

Mr. Newton: We have directed the pattern of Government expenditure to local authorities and others, including urban development corporations, in a way that has markedly increased the impact of those programmes and their effect on the ground.
What is even clearer than the expenditure statistics that I have given in overall terms is the evidence of what is happening not only with physical regeneration and redevelopment—we heard little about that from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—but with the level of unemployment. In the 57 urban programme areas—I go a little wider than some of the right hon. Gentleman's statistics—unemployment has fallen by one third in the two years to March 1989, and by not far short of a quarter in the past year alone. In the past year, too, there has been a particularly encouraging drop in long-term unemployment—that is, those out of work for six months or more —which is one of the hallmarks of far too much inner-city unemployment.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about variations in different parts of the country, I will give him the facts as stated in last week's announcement of a further fall in unemployment. They put into a slightly different perspective some of what he said about the pace at which unemployment is falling in different parts of the country. The facts are as follows:
All regions in the United Kingdom have shared in the downward trend in unemployment with the west midlands and Wales experiencing the biggest reductions over the past year followed by Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west and the north. Within this total long-term unemployment has been falling faster than unemployment generally and in January the number of long-term unemployed was the lowest for more than six years.
That is the perspective in which the right hon. Gentleman's remarks should be considered.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is happening on Merseyside? He cannot put the whole of the north-west together. What is actually happening on Merseyside?

Mr. Newton: I visit Merseyside, the north-west, the north and the west midlands fairly frequently. Unemployment is falling in all parts of the country and the level of confidence and optimism is rising.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister simply give us the figures which meet or do not meet my point? For the promises made two years ago to be met, unemployment in the inner cities should be falling more rapidly than elsewhere. The Minister has given figures for Scotland, the west midlands and the north of England, but the west midlands is not one big inner city. What is the unemployment figure in the inner cities? Is it not the figure that I gave? Is not the Minister trying to confound the issue with irrelevant alternatives?

Mr. Newton: I am trying to put into perspective some of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman sought to use about the pattern of unemployment. It has admittedly and undoubtedly taken a considerable amount of time to achieve the progress that we wish to see with this particularly intractable part of the unemployment problem.
Some of the more satisfactory trends in inner-city unemployment can be seen in areas where the Government have established specifically targeted task forces to help overcome problems in three or four wards of a city. A disturbing aspect of the Labour party's recent policy document, which was the exact obverse of one of the right hon. Gentleman's implications, was the apparent desire to get away from carefully targeted measures aimed at specific pockets of unemployment and difficulty which exist in places such as Birmingham or Bristol against the background of fairly widespread prosperity for the city as a whole. That is particularly true in Bristol.
The Government's targeted approach, which is beginning to be seen coming through in some of the figures —I make no grander claim than that—reflects the approach that we have tried to adopt to inner-city problems. The continuing fall in unemployment—as shown in the figures announced last week, which accompanied the press release from which I quoted a few moments ago—gives us all further encouragement.
What was most striking about the speech of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not its variance with what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box—that is something that we expect and could sensibly predict—but its variance with what is said around the country by those who have looked at what is happening in our cities and those involved in local government and in the industrial and commercial life of our cities.
I could have brought a very substantial sheaf of documents relating to these matters to the Chamber today. Instead, I have culled a few which I felt it might be sensible to refer to the House. The managing director of the Newcastle Chronicle and Journal, at the north-east business man of the year dinner earlier this year, which I attended, said:
There is a renewed pride in what is being achieved. The fundamental change of attitude throughout the region over the past 2 or 3 years is miraculous. We have moved from being a depressed, depressing and defeatist area to one which wants to take on the world.
I refer also to a special report published in The Times last autumn about regional developments generally. Its sub-heading read:

Improvements in the national economy have given Britain's poorer areas an opportunity they are determined to use … And … with government help, they are seeing results.
Just before Christmas The Sunday Times reported:
Sheffield set to carve role for tomorrow.
I am glad to see hon. Members who represent Sheffield constituencies present in the Chamber today. After referring to what had been happening in Sheffield, the article continued
Even more strikingly,
this new feeling
has trickled down to the level of the Sheffielder-in-the-street. It was hard to find anyone last week who was not anxious to stress the city's exciting future.

Mr. Flannery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I was in Sheffield a week or two ago and everyone to whom I spoke voiced the same view as that expressed in The Sunday Times to which I have just referred.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the full story. The reality is that the Government left the east end of Sheffield a desert—it was so still and quiet. There has been an upsurge at the prospect of the student games coming to Sheffield in a couple of years' time. We are pleading with the Government to give us more money for that. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), could tell the right hon. Gentleman a lot more about Sheffield's lack of money and its urgent requests for more from the Government.

Mr. Newton: No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman.
Sheffield's pride in being able to stage the student games reflects its change in mood and confidence, which is also reflected in the work of the urban development corporation and plans that it has for the lower Don valley, in what the local authorities and the local business men, including those in the chamber of commerce, are achieving through partnership, and in the fact that there is a much stronger partnership now between the public and private sector in Sheffield than was ever the case two or three years ago.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked about Merseyside. I will come closer to the immediate situation there by referring to a substantial supplement on Liverpool in The Times yesterday, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt saw, headed "Panorama of growing prosperity" and subheaded:
As Liverpool toasts its Cup Final victory, it is also celebrating an economic turnaround which will enable the city to enter the 1990s with its confidence restored".
Another subheading reads:
How Merseyside turned optimism to realism and won the confidence of industry and new investment".
Perhaps most telling of all is a quote from the Labour leader of Liverpool city council, Keva Coombes
I am convinced that we have more reason to be optimistic now than for many years".
He is then reported as saying that:
there was also now a more pragmatic approach to working together between the council and central government agencies.
Finally, with regard to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I have with me the foreword to a document recently published by Birmingham city council called,


"Birmingham economic strategy", signed by the Labour chairman of the economic development committee, Councillor Albert Bore, which says:
There are many indications that Birmingham is regaining its competitive edge in many of the manufacturing sectors in which it was previously world famous. It is also going to become one of Europe's major visitor destinations for business, culture and leisure in the 1990s.
Another Birmingham city council publication, "The Birmingham Investment", published within the past month or so, says:
Look around the city and you will see evidence of new investment and new development everywhere.
This is the city that the right hon. Gentleman was describing in such gloomy and depressing terms no more than 10 minutes ago. It goes on:
From more than £500 million of new retail and leisure developments—including Britain's national indoor arena—to the new industrial and office property developments that are rising all over the city.
We are told:
Listen to the city's new business community, and you will discover a new mood of confidence and optimism among thousands of local companies.
That is not a Minister talking, but Birmingham city council.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose—

Mr. Newton: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman may wish to stop me, but I will continue for a moment.
The publication goes on:
Over the last few years a series of investments has changed the whole landscape of business property in Birmingham … Birmingham Heartlands, for example, has brought the city together with 5 major developers in a unique inner city regeneration programme.

Mr. Grocott: The Minister is talking in glowing terms about new developments. Will he confirm the fundamental point that any recovery taking place in the west midlands in general or in Birmingham in particular is recovery from the devastation caused by the Conservatives as a deliberate instrument of economic policy in the early 1980s? Let us not overlook the question of the quality of jobs. In the west midlands, for instance, in engineering alone the number of apprenticeships, according to official Government figures, is 54 per cent. of what it was in 1979. Is that not a dreadful indictment of the Government?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to confirm the hon. Gentleman's observations of the causes and position from which industry in Birmingham and the west midlands is recovering, but let us consider the statistics relating to the motor car industry—historically a source of great importance to the midlands. The decline in that industry set in during the period of the Labour Government—aggravated, admittedly, in the early 1980s by a world recession. The industry is now recovering. Last year, the production of motor vehicles in Britain exceeded the 1978 level—[Interruption.] The decline started during the 1970s. It did not suddenly start in 1979. The level of motor car production has now exceeded the 1978 level because, for the first time in a decade, the industry is moving up and not down.

Mr. Hattersley: I remind the Minister that the debate is explicitly and specifically about inner cities. Whether his facts are right or wrong, to talk about the prosperity of a

whole region is wholly irrelevant—[Interruption.] The Minister has hardly said a word about the inner cities since his opening remarks.
The idea that the tourist attraction that Birmingham is becoming, and I hope will increasingly become, will provide any jobs in the inner city of Birmingham is ridiculous. In the bit of the inner city that I represent, the improvement in the motor industry will have no effect whatever. The debate is designed to focus attention on specific problems. For the Minister to talk in such general terms shows that he does not even know what the inner cities are.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would rather I did not give way, as I have been doing in line with the normal courtesies of the House. My last observations were in response to the intervention of his hon. Friend the member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). Does the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook really believe that the vehicle industry has nothing to do with the inner cities? Only a fortnight ago I was at what is now Leyland-DAF Vehicles, what used to be Freight Rover, in inner city Birmingham, one of the areas in which we have a task force—[Interruption.] It is important in the area in which it is located. That firm is now embarking on a modernisation, expansion and training programme to ensure that the jobs that it is creating go to the people who live around the factory. That is the importance of some of these developments. If Opposition Members do not appreciate that, they should study some of the issues involved.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the task force experience in Leicester? Three years ago, amid a great fanfare, the Leicester task force was set up in Highfields. This year, in a sneaky letter to me and to other Leicester Members, it was announced that the task force was to close because of its failure. Will the Minister explain why that task force closed in Leicester?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is not merely paraphrasing the letter that was written at the time but is turning it on its head. The point made in it was that the economic and employment situation in Leicester, including Highfields, had improved to a significant extent during the life of the task force, that a number of development funds and other activities had been set in hand which, in our view, would have a continuing beneficial effect, and that we felt it right to use the resource represented by task forces in areas where the problems are greater than those of that part of Leicester. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at the same time as I announced the winding down of task force programmes in Leicester, Wolverhampton and Preston between March and the end of the year, I announced new task forces, which are very much welcomed by the local authorities involved, in Granby and Toxteth in Liverpool, in Bradford and in Lewisham. Those areas all have significant problems which I believe that the task forces can help to overcome.
If the picture painted by the Opposition motion is unrecognisable in the real world, no right hon. or hon. Member would disguise the fact that there is still much more to do in pressing ahead with the programmes and initiatives to tackle inner-city problems. That is not surprising. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was


very fair in acknowledging that the problems of inner cities did not suddenly come on to the scene in 1979 or in the early 1980s but that their causes are deep-seated and go back at least one generation—some would argue, longer than that—and just as their roots go back a long way, so it will take time to overcome them fully.
Today I seek to describe the progress being made in overcoming problems which have been encountered over decades and even for generations. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the causes are complex. The most obvious among them is the failure to come to grips with the pattern of industrial change over a long period and instead to pretend that it was not happening by disguising it in various ways, with the result that the process of adjustment was even more difficult than it needed to be. I should have made that point in particular to the hon. Member for The Wrekin if he were still in his place.
Whatever view is taken of the causes of industrial change, old industries close, leaving derelict sites which detract from the environment and causing a loss of income to the community which is reflected in declining property standards and falling land values. Too often, it also means that younger, more economically active people leave the area to work elsewhere, which in turn breeds a loss of community pride. Together, those factors create a depressing physical environment which has other adverse social and economic effects.

Mr. Heffer: There is no question but that there has been industrial change and that it is continuing, but does not that create a need for the Government to intervene? If there is decline in one or two industries, or in a whole series of them, surely the Government must have policies, plans and concepts for dealing with workers who are left high and dry and unemployed. Have not the Government failed to do anything serious about developing alternatives to deal with industrial change?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that that is true. The hon. Gentleman may wish that it had proved possible in some cases to avoid some of the transitional difficulties which arise in moving from one pattern of industry to another, but I hope that he agrees that one of the most notable features of the regional economy currently—although the north-east is the most striking example, this can be seen in the north-west as well—is the increasing growth of new industries, not least with the assistance of inward investment from overseas in creating electronics industries, rebuilding some important parts of motor car manufacturing and the like. Very often that is assisted by the kind of Government policy for which the hon. Gentleman calls. In his own region, assistance was recently given to Vauxhall for further investment at Ellesmere port, which will both safeguard existing jobs and create new employment in that part of Merseyside. That is just one of many examples that I could cite.
As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to recognise, it follows from the complexity and the deep-seated nature of the problems that there can be no simple or overnight solution to inner-city decline. It requires a range of measures tailored to deal with different aspects of the problem, and carried through with a sustained and determined approach over a number of years. That is precisely what we have sought to bring about through the "Action for Cities" programme.
I emphasise that the Government's approach starts from the recognition that the first essential is a prosperous national economy. The whole House knows—certainly the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows it well from his experience in the last Labour Government—that regional resurgence and inner-city regeneration cannot be created on the back of the national economic stagnation and relative economic decline that we saw in the 1970s. The foundation of what we seek to achieve in the inner cities is what we have already achieved for the country as a whole —sustained economic growth such as has not been seen since the war.
It is on that foundation that we have built and are pressing forward the range of programmes and initiatives to which I referred briefly earlier in my speech. They cover housing, with the Estate Action programme involving tenants in the management and improvement of their homes. They provide a substantial increase in the money available to housing associations through the Housing Corporation and through local authorities. They cover a large expansion in training programmes, both to encourage enterprise—through, for instance, support for small firms—and to help people back into work.
The programmes cover matters that the hon. Member for Walton has just raised, with support for inner city business—including regional selective assistance—and a variety of grants for small firms, as well as the work of the English Industrial Estates Corporation. They cover a substantial programme of derelict land reclamation, and —this comes closer to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by other hon. Members in interventions—they cover the urban programme, including city grants, and the work of the urban development corporations, which together are receiving a substantial increase in the coming year.
The programmes also cover the task forces to which I referred—in some 16 locations up and down the country —and the co-ordinated work of the city action teams, bringing together the work of various Government Departments. They cover the safer cities campaign, which is directed strongly towards the crime problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that he did not tell us about the decrease in a number of important elements in the crime figures last year. No one disputes that substantial increases in crime have occurred—again, over a period going back well before 1979—but last year, according to the metropolitan and non-metropolitan force figures, there was a decrease in recorded notifiable offences of 11·3 per cent. in the west Midlands, 4·5 per cent. in West Yorkshire, just over 6·5 per cent. on Merseyside some 6·5 per cent. in Northumbria, more than 13 per cent. in South Yorkshire and nearly 8 per cent. in Greater Manchester.
No one is suggesting that further progress is not needed in tackling such problems. I merely ask the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friends to recognise that in many important respects—and, I believe, to a significant extent as a result of the approach that the Government have adopted and the wide range of initiatives brought together in the "Action for Cities" programme—progress is now being made in dealing with some of the problems that have proved intractable for Governments of both parties over a long period.
All the initiatives that I have mentioned are being pressed forward continuously. In March, when "Progress on Cities" was published, we announced a number of new


task force projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced the building up of his compacts initiative to improve opportunities for inner-city youngsters to build links with and get jobs in local firms. That is going on in a consistent drive all the time.
Today, for example, we are announcing an important agreement between English Estates and London Industrial to co-operate in a joint venture for a substantial programme to provide managed work space in inner-city areas of London. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), whom I am delighted to see here, has today announced two new city grants totalling more than half a million pounds towards the construction of industrial units on the Ketley business park in the Wrekin and—this will interest the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I hope—towards the cost of the refurbishment and conversion of a 160,000 sq ft factory into industrial units in Huyton in the borough of Knowsley.
Those are just further examples of practical steps being taken under the initiatives to which I have referred to tackle the sort of problems that we all acknowledge need to be tackled if we are successfully to overcome the long inner-city decline.
As a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I will therefore emphasise only briefly three points that I believe to be of particular importance in considering what the Government have been seeking to do.

Mr. Vaz: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I think not. I have already taken up a good deal of the time of the House. I think that it would be sensible now to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own contribution to the debate.
The first point that I want to make about the way in which the Government programmes are organised and the results that they have achieved concerns the significantly greater involvement of the private sector in the regeneration of inner cities and in working together with local authorities to that end. Sheffield, to which I referred earlier, is a very good example—as is Birmingham, with the Heartlands scheme—but those examples are now being matched and modelled in many parts of the country with the development of business leadership teams, often involving a direct partnership between local authorities and the business community, such as the Wearside Opportunity, the Newcastle initiative, Teesside Tomorrow, and a number of others.
That greater involvement of business, which is crucial to the real regeneration of the inner cities, is being assisted and supported by the way in which—this is what I had in mind in answering an intervention a few moments ago —the remodelling of some of the initiatives to which I referred in summarising the elements in the "Action for Cities" programme is very much directed to ensuring that Government money brings in substantial amounts of private sector investment alongside.
The urban development corporation is a very good example. I will not use only the London Docklands development corporation because the gearing there is particularly high—between £8 and £10 of private money

coming in for every £1 of Government expenditure on the urban development corporation. That is well above the average, but even the average is about £4 of private sector money coming in behind every £1 of Government money and much the same ratio is true for city grant as well.
It is important to understand the extent to which the Government's initiatives are bringing in other resources on a very large scale and that therefore the figures that we use —whether £3 billion for last year or £3·5 billion for this year—for the total Government spending on the inner-city programmes are a significant underestimate of the resources now coming into the cities to assist with their regeneration.
The second point, on which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook touched, is the improvement, which I very much welcome, in the degree of co-operation and—the right hon. Gentleman also used the word—the partnership which is taking place between central and local Government. Many local authorities, for example, are becoming much more actively involved in the work of urban development corporations and of the Government's task forces and in co-operating not just with other agencies in Government but with the private sector and voluntary organisations. That is a very important part of the improvement in the scene that has occurred in the past few years and one that I very much welcome.
The third point that I wish to emphasise is very much related to the points that have been made about the need to ensure that the benefits of all these programmes, including the work of the urban development corporations and the physical redevelopment that is taking place, accrue to the people who live in the inner-city areas. I do not accept the simple assessment that has been made in some quarters that the mere fact that docklands is being regenerated—to take an example that is frequently used —attracts people into the area and therefore can be seen as benefiting them as well is contrary to the aims of Government policy.
Part of the problem of the inner cities, a point to which I referred earlier, has been the extent to which many of the young, dynamic, economically active people have left the inner cities over a long period, leaving behind only the deprived and the disadvantaged. It follows that part of the real long-term answer to inner city problems must be to recreate more balanced communities in the inner cities and therefore to attract back to them—

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not intend to give way now.
We must attract back to the inner cities some of the groups who, historically, have left or been driven out. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: No.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Newton: What is important—I very much welcome it—is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing through his training programmes, what the urban development corporations and others are doing through their programmes—not least those associated with Canary wharf—and not least what the Government's inner-city task forces are doing by developing what are called customised training projects,


involving the matching of local unemployed people with the training required to get them the jobs that are known already to exist and the employment that is required with local employers. That is an increasingly significant part of the inner-city policy.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way, for the reasons that I have already explained.
That is, I repeat, an increasingly significant part of our inner city policy, and one to which we are determined to give greater emphasis.
I have taken up a good deal of time, not least because I have sought to respond substantially to the interventions that have been made.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister has not done so.

Mr. Newton: Whether it is judged in terms of expenditure, the range and purpose of the programmes and the increasing results of the programmes—measured not just by what I say, but by what people are saying throughout the country, whether business leaders, or local government leaders and others—there is no way in which what is happening can credibly be presented, as the Opposition's motion seeks to present it, as a story of total neglect.

Mr. Vaz: It is.

Mr. Newton: It is a story of increasing success in spreading to all parts of the country the increasing prosperity that we have created for the nation as a whole. I invite the House to reject the motion and to pass the amendment.

Mr. Robert Litherland: When we discuss the regeneration of the inner cities, we have to differentiate between myth and reality. The myth was perpetrated by the Prime Minister at the last general election when she said that the Government must get into the inner cities. That myth has been prolonged by Government propaganda. Glossy brochures have been distributed, illustrating proposed developments in the inner-city areas. There has been media coverage of visiting Ministers donning protective helmets and cutting tapes, trowel in hand, ready for action. They have posed and postulated in order to convince the electorate that all is well, that the inner cities are safe in their hands.
That is the myth. The only people to benefit will be the developers and financiers and those with the yuppie mentality, enjoying their new "with it" accommodation in converted warehouses or posing in their new theme pubs. What, however, is the reality? In Manchester inner city, the commercial centre is surrounded on the periphery by real people with real problems. They have experienced the loss of some 25,000 jobs, mainly in manufacturing industry, since the early 1980s, creating an army of unemployed. There is still over 33 per cent. male unemployment in the inner cities. That is intensified in pockets where there is a concentration of ethnic minorities who, like the disabled, find it hard to get employment, unless in the low-paid service sector, doing menial tasks.
In the inner city of Manchester, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.

Hattersley) said, there is a lower standard of living than in greater Manchester or north Cheshire. Before the changes in benefit in April 1988, 83,000 people were dependent on supplementary benefit. Those are the very people who have suffered an adverse effect in their meagre standard of living since then. A total of 18,000 have lost all housing benefit, and 45,000 now receive no help with their water rate bills. Then there are the children: 7,000 have been deprived of school meals. Because of social security changes, and especially because of the abolition of Department of Social Security grants and their replacement by the social fund, 50,000 people are worse off. Also, they have the spectre of the poll tax just over the horizon.
Poverty is a stark reality in the inner city. It manifests itself in low birth weights, premature deaths and increased crime. A recent report by the city council on the impact of poverty shows what poverty really means:
Not being able to afford food. Over a third of households in poverty said they ran short of money to buy food. Falling into Debt. Over a half of households in poverty said that they had fallen seriously behind with payments during the previous year. A Cold Home. One third of households say there are times when they go without essential heating, and around half of them are in debt with fuel bills.
That is the inner city in Manchester. In a so-called booming economy, the gap between the poor and the rich is widening. The few jobs created outside the bogus training schemes are mainly low-paid and part-time, with no job security. As the better-off receive tax handouts and the benefits of the poll tax, the poor in the inner cities are losing. They are the people who are left on the sidelines.
Ethnic minority households suffer even worse. Their rate of unemployment is estimated at more than one and a half times that of white people. They have greater difficulty in obtaining work.
There are only two growth industries. The first is the demolition contractor, smashing down the old, empty factories, like wolverines at a dead carcase. Those factories once provided jobs and dignity for the people of pride in their craft. The other growth industry is the loan shark, preying like a vulture on the misery of people. Again, what can we expect? That is private enterprise and will be welcomed by the Government, who cynically deceive the inner-city people that all is well but at the same time deprive them of meagre means so that they can line the pockets of their affluent friends and supporters.
It is no use building luxury flats, marinas and theme pubs, and in Manchester fantasising about the G Mex Centre, mainly financed by public money, and the vast improvements to the Holiday inn, once the Midland hotel owned by British Rail, when very few of the people that I represent can afford the prices that would give them access to such places.
Next time Ministers come to Manchester, they should visit the real people and see their standard of living, their poor housing conditions and the effect on a great city and its people of the Government draining it of financial resources. If Ministers have any conscience, they will riot sleep easily afterwards. The Prime Minister's words have rebounded in her face. She has no conception of life in the inner cities. She does not care, and she has betrayed the finest people in the country.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: It gives me great pleasure to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. The Government have achieved miracles in the resuscitation of the inner cities. Much of what I heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) represents a Birmingham that I do not recognise. I have lived there for 60 years; I was born, bred and educated in Birmingham. I served on the city council and the West Midlands council for 20 years. My father was a slum clergyman in a city centre mission, where I worked from my teens. I know my Birmingham, and I know the city centre.
Birmingham's decline happened from the time of Sir Stafford Cripps, under the national Government. Giving assisted area status to every other part of the country was against the interests of the heartland of Britain. Industry was not allowed to build brick upon brick there until the Conservative Government got in and reversed that policy in 1979. The dictum of strengthening the weak weakened the strong in the west midlands, until the area had to be totally refurbished.
Thanks to the actions of the Government, the picture is totally different. By January 1989, in England alone, inner-city unemployment had fallen by 26 per cent. and in Birmingham it had fallen by 23 per cent. No wonder the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook moved the motion in such a quiet tone and was so inhibited. The real massage from the inner cities is that they are alive and thriving under a combination of public and private enterprise and that they are economically successful. Many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said were inaccurate. I saw the chamber of commerce not some time in the past, as he did, but last Friday, and it did not express any dissatisfaction. It was waiting to hear what the Secretary of State for Transport would say on inter-urban roads. He introduced a programme that will raise public investment in roads from £5 million to £12 billion. That will help the economic success of Birmingham and the west midlands.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about city training centres but he got the address wrong. The address is Kingshurst, Birmingham. It is a mere 100 yd or so outside the city boundary.
We have a picture of increasing success. I am pleased that earlier today the House approved without argument the Third Reading of the Midland Metro Bill, which will lead to the investment of £1,000 million in the light electric railway system to link the towns lying between Wolverhampton and Birmingham on the line of the Wolverhampton low-level rail route. This will work wonders and green up an area which has been neglected in the past; it will environmentally help the city centres of all the so-called black country towns which lie along the route—and that is only part of the scheme.
Following the advent of the national exhibition centre, we have approved and are building a conference—convention centre which will open in two or three years time. We are spending £147 million, which is coming partly from Europe, partly from the Government and partly from private enterprise. We are spending £240 million on a canalside leisure project. So, in Birmingham and the inner city, £1·6 billion-worth of building and investment is under way.
Everywhere, shopping schemes, factory schemes and units of commerce are being created in Birmingham, with a consequential shattering reduction in unemployment. Unemployment has almost ceased to be the major problem that it was in the past.
We have spent about £90 million on Birmingham international airport, and another £80 million is to be spent on it, bringing business people from all over the world to our factories, convention centres and exhibition centres.
Heartlands Birmingham, a city centre initiative chaired by a former illustrious colleague of ours, Sir Reginald Eyre—the former Member for Birmingham, Hall Green—is redeveloping more than 2,000 acres. That partnership was requested by the Labour-controlled city council of Birmingham; it is a partnership between the private and public sectors, involving a large amount of private enterprise money. This urban development authority was not in line with Government thinking on urban development corporations, one of which has been so successful in and around the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). Nevertheless, the initiative was allowed and is now in being.
It is introducing phenomenal infrastructure. A new water link scheme on the canal was initiated this very week. When, in future, we discuss inner-city redevelopment we must bear in mind not only isolated spots of canal redevelopment but redevelopment throughout the country on canals that run through so many of our city centres in the midlands and the north. In Brum we have more canals than Venice, and I commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy this complete urban renewal along canal frontages by means of environmental and commercial schemes.
The one thing that Heartlands Birmingham would appreciate now, on top of the vast sums of money announced in the inter-urban road scheme, is finance for the Spline road, which will be needed to bring more factories and redevelopment into Heartlands. I should declare an interest as an adviser to PPG Industries—

Mr. Litherland: Ah!

Mr. Bevan: —a firm which has brought to the centre of Birmingham a project involving huge refurbishment of most of the land. It did the same in Pittsburgh, and it has invested £60 million in Wigan, not far from the area of Manchester represented by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) who has been making sedentary remarks. This firm has specialised, and has introduced private sector schemes of excellence everywhere. I hope that this redevelopment will continue.
In addition to passing on to my right hon. Friend unstinted congratulations on the regeneration of our city, I recommend to him the adoption of a scheme of tax-free municipal bonds, which can produce more and more money for the redevelopment of inner cities. This scheme has been wholly successful in America. Tax-free bonds have been taken out by corporations and individuals on worthless land in the Baltimore inner-port scheme, and in Boston, Massachusetts, Washington and New York. Redevelopment has increased the worth of those bonds substantially. Thus, they have rejuvenated city centres in many parts of America. I hope that we too will be able to begin such a system to improve still further the excellent


development that is already in place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will, with his right hon. Friends in the Treasury, determine whether such a scheme could perpetuate the excellent action that has already been taken in Birmingham and other areas.

Mr. David Clelland: It is a measure of the Government's failure adequately to deal with the problems faced by our inner cities that, after ten years, we still have to raise these issues and press for more effective solutions. The Government have tried, as the Minister has described this afternoon, in their own way, but despite the numerous gimmicks—tons of glossy brochures, loads of slick advertising, breakfast time press launches and myriad excuses—the basic problems remain: inadequate housing, poor facilities and poverty in the areas that we describe as inner cities.
Despite the attempts by the Secretary of State for Social Services to deny the obvious, large-scale poverty has grown in the past ten years in these areas. Where there is poverty, bad housing, poor facilities and services, there is unfortunately also crime to add to the miserable conditions in which people must live.
The Opposition motion calls for more emphasis on partnership between Government and local authorities. Inner-area partnerships already exist. My constituency is entirely encompassed by the Newcastle-Gateshead inner area partnership. The system was set up by the last Labour Government but, although it has been continued by this Government, its effectiveness has slowly been eroded by inflation, which has not been properly compensated for and which has led to a reduction in real terms of Government investment. Government restrictions on the type and duration of schemes have led to an emphasis on economic development, and because of its limited resources and a reduction in support for socially desirable schemes, the partnership can have little impact—yet it could have had a major effect.
The influence of local authorities has been gradually limited even though almost all the innovations and partnership proposals come from them. Those which do not, come from the voluntary sector. The Department of the Environment merely holds the purse strings, and Ministers continually block schemes which councils know will benefit their areas because they do not fit the Government's political philosophy. The money that central Government contribute, apart from being eroded and strictly applied, has to be balanced against the money that was taken away from the councils by reductions in rate support grant and other grants over that period. In the case of Newcastle and Gateshead, the reduction in rate support grant alone came to more than twice what was received through partnership over the past 10 years. The Government give with one hand and take back with a forklift truck.
One of the most worrying aspects of the Government's 10 years has been the horrific increase in crime. As I said earlier, our inner cities have also borne the brunt of this. What has the party of law and order done about it? The answer is percious little, and nothing that has had any noticeable effect. Northumbria police authority has continually pressed for more resources to deal with the

problems that it faces, particularly in the Tyne and Wear conurbation. The Government's response has been not only inadequate but inequitable.
If the criterion for the distribution of resources was crime, then 200 police officers should be distributed to the Northumbria force from other areas. In the Tyne and Wear area, an officer handles an average of 50 crimes a year—the highest in the country. In Manchester, the figure is 46 and in the Metropolitan police force it is only 27, the lowest in the country. That is possibly because, per capita, Northumbria has the lowest number of officers and the Metropolitan police force has the highest. There are 2·4 officers per 1,000 of population in Northumbria, and 3·9 in London. However, when the Northumbria police authority asked the Home Office for 80 extra officers for 1989–90, it got just 30.
As a further example of the unequal nature of the distribution of resources, when the Government were approached with a request for 59 officers for the specific purpose of policing the Tyne and Wear metro system, they turned the request down. However, London Regional Transport has been loaned 82 officers from the Metropolitan and City of London forces, pending the completion of training of 50 extra British Transport police. I understand that a meeting is to be held on 27 June, in another attempt to convince Ministers of the merits of the Tyne and Wear case. I hope that Ministers will take account of the disparities that I have mentioned and grant this necessary, but in the circumstances modest, request.
A number of important problems need to be tackled urgently if the people of the inner-city areas on Tyneside are to be relieved of their problems, and its economy regenerated. In housing, massive renewal and refurbishment is needed at a time when Government policy has halted council house provision and slashed the housing capital programmes of the local authorities. Last July, Newcastle city council made a realistic bid for approval to borrow £48·3 million for 1989–90, but received permission to borrow only £6 million. Apart from being grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the city, that was even 25 per cent. less that it had been in 1988–89, before inflation is taken into account. That is a measure of the Government's understanding or caring about the housing needs of the inner-city areas, the plight of the homeless and the needs of those with special housing problems.
The same thing has happened in education. In Gateshead, the council's secondary education system is in an unholy mess, largely because of the parochialism that the Government encourage. The Government's answer is to encourage privatisation and to bring in business men to run our schools. Thus, we have the proposal for a city technology college in Gateshead, just to add further confusion and complication to the problems that already exist. That proposal sacrifices our children's future to the short-term needs of business men. This was amply demonstrated by the main sponsor of the new college, Mr. Peter Vardy, a local second-hand car salesman, who said that the purpose of the college would be
to education children for the needs of business"—
that is, when they are not being indoctrinated into Mr. Vardy's preference in religion. I am sure that all parents who care about their children's education and future will avoid the college like the plague, despite its deliberately alluring title of "King's college", which masks its sinister purpose.
Our inner cities, particularly in the north-east, need adequate infrastructure and good communications—not least, the provision of a high standard roads network, both within the region and linking us to the rest of the motorway system. Again, the Government, despite the opportunity, failed to come up with the goods when their future proposals, outlined in last week's White Paper, fell short of providing the vision or the urgency required. I hope that the representations that will be made to Ministers from both sides of the House on behalf of the region will be taken fully into account.
The Tyne and Wear metro transport system is one of the most modern and efficient in Europe and has brought great benefits to the conurbation. Earlier today, the House agreed to a Bill that will allow for the extension of the system to Newcastle airport—an important and significant extension for the local economy. Again, the system will be relying on the Government for financial support, and I hope that they will look sympathetically on that request.
Unemployment remains a massive problem in the northern inner cities, with some wards in my constituency running male unemployment rates in excess of 50 per cent. That provides further evidence of the nonsense spoken by the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government claim that this problem is reducing, but while some reduction is evident, a major factor in that reduction is the manipulation of the method of calculating unemployment rather than any significant increase in job opportunities. In my inner-city constituency, what decrease there has been, has been at a lower rate than that for the region as a whole.
Those jobs that have been created are generally low-paid, part-time and in the catering and service industries. The days when people could rely on stable, well-paid work in valuable manufacturing industry have gone, as the Government's disastrous neglect of manufacturing led to a slump of previously unknown depths. Only now, as the Chancellor has told us, has it begun to make progress against the level that it was 10 years ago. In the process, we have lost the skills and the expertise of our craftsmen, which at one time were passed on to future generations, but have now been lost for ever in many cases.
The recovery of which the Chancellor spoke is not a recovery in manufacturing industry. As has been said, the recovery is from a particularly low base. I worked in an engineering factory on Tyneside for 20 years and in 1979, that factory employed about 6,000 people. Now, it employs about 1,600. It has picked up in recent months and is beginning to improve, but it has a long way to go to get back to 6,000.
The north-east of England is a marvellous place in which to live, to work and to bring up a family; I would never wish to work anywhere else. However, our inner-city areas not only share the problems faced by similar areas but also have the disadvantages which I have outlined, which a Government could resolve, with a little will and by letting us help ourselves. No doubt hon. Members will know that many good things are going on in the north-east. They include co-operation between local government and the private sector, which has always been a feature of the area and has brought a great deal of

benefit. It would continue to do so were it not hampered by the Government's obsession with giving dominance to the private sector, often when it does not want it.
The Chancellor of the Duchy quoted the managing director of The Newcastle Journal saying at a recent dinner held in my constituency that the region was ready to take on the world. Some people will say anything for a free dinner, particularly when those attending the dinner are the people who dish out the rewards. However, he neglected to say that much of what is happening in the north-east is the result of the innovation of local people, the assistance and encouragement that people are given by the local authorities, and the contribution of the local authorities themselves. It has little to do with Government policy, which has hampered rather than encouraged that progress.
I look forward to the day, not too far away now, when we shall have a Government who recognise the legitimate role of all sectors of the community, stop interfering and let us get on with the job.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: For too long, those who live in our inner cities have felt relatively abandoned—second-class citizens making do with second best, for whom no one appears genuinely to care, and invariably finding themselves living within the confines of local Labour authorities whose interest seems to be to keep them imprisoned in an environment of fear and despair. The Opposition's motion is distinctly hypocritical.
It took my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take the bull by the horns in June 1987—thank God she did—and to recognise that for too long successive Governments had ignored the underlying problems in the inner cities which had to be tackled. Why should those who live in the inner cities be denied the quality of life that the rest of us all too easily take for granted? It was a matter of taking up the basic strands of inner city life, injecting leadership—one of the most important criteria of any initiative—finance, enthusiasm and determination to overcome the problems which have contributed to an inferior way of life.
Instead of talking, we should act. I could talk for hours about the Government's successive initiatives. I find it quite incredible that Opposition Members can say that nothing has happened under this Government. The Government have provided new jobs, training, new homes, more homes for rent, better education for all, a rejuvenation of derelict areas in which no one wished to invest, and an improvement in law and order. Within that structure, they have recognised the need for local authorities of whatever political persuasion to endeavour to put politics behind them and to work with the Government and the private sector for the good of local people.
Unlike one or two Opposition Members, I can report at first hand that Wolverhampton is a thriving town. In the debate on manufacturing last week, we discussed the huge turnaround in the past seven years. People are flocking to invest in Wolverhampton and to set up new companies. But we have to remember the people who live there, and how much their quality of life depends on jobs and on the environment that is provided for them.
One of the most important and disturbing problems in Wolverhampton has involved homes and housing. People want housing where they can feel safe and which they can respect. One of the most serious problems in my constituency is the inability of the local Labour council to impose strict housing management, with the result that no matter how much money it spends—whether from ratepayers or taxpayers— the area is left to decline and heads are buried in the sand when it comes to ensuring that tenants abide by the rules of their tenancy, with the result that, all too often, such tenants reduce the quality of life of the people around them. In Low Hill in my constituency, thousands of pounds have been spent doing up council properties, with fantastic results, but the local housing department then allowed gipsy families to conglomerate in those houses and mow down the front garden walls, which had recently been erected, to put their caravans in front of the houses. Sometimes they even tethered animals inside their homes. Yet normal, conscientious people, many of them pensioners, are expected to live alongside such activities. Regrettably, the local council has shown no determination whatever to sort that situation out. The local council talks a lot but does little.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady said that the council neglected to carry out repairs to council houses. Before accusing the council of neglect, will she tell the House what the budget is for the Wolverhampton housing committee to spend on council house repairs and whether it has declined in the past three years in real terms?

Mrs. Hicks: The hon. Lady must have misheard me. I was not discussing repairs. I was discussing improvements that the council has made. In some cases it has done a marvellous job, but I decry the fact that, having invested money in council houses, it has then abandoned those properties so that no one wants to live in them. I ask the hon. Lady why Wolverhampton council has not collected the £4 million outstanding in rent arrears, which could be further invested for the good of other tenants.

Ms. Primarolo: Because the Government have made the tenants so poor that they cannot afford to pay their rent.

Mrs. Hicks: Now that the hon. Lady has opened up the debate, why does not the council get on with the job of filling the 2,000 empty homes so that we can solve the housing problem?
Another area in my constituency is called Heathtown, where, after 16 years of a Labour local authority, people felt like prisoners living in high-rise flats where the lack of housing management resulted in squalid conditions fit only for animals. I have seen it many times. The flats were not fit for people to live in and they were a breeding ground for criminal activity. The local council could not give the flats away to people on the waiting list and had to advertise them outside its own area although it has a long housing waiting list. The Government stepped in, recognising that Labour councillors could not control the housing and offered a much-needed estate management initiative, 'Estate Action', and an initial injection of £600,000. The local Labour authority now thinks it marvellous that the flats have security doors, video cameras and concierges. The local people assume that it is

local authority money and, as with so many initiatives, do not realise that it was Government money and Government-inspired.
When the Opposition with their hearts on their sleeves talk about the homeless, they do not mention the delaying tactics that Labour councils apply to prevent people from owning their own council homes. On Fridays and Saturdays my surgery is filled not with social security problems but with people who put in to buy their council homes two, three or four years ago but find the local council using delaying tactics to thwart the right to buy. That is a disgrace.
Nationally, there are 103,000 empty local authority dwellings, many in inner-city areas. Nearly 22,000 of those are available for immediate letting. In theory, every homeless family could be taken out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation if Labour authorities would let those properties.
Jobs and training figure very largely in the west midlands, where there has been an enormous reduction in unemployment. Wolverhampton has had the benefit of a Government task force which has done a marvellous job getting people into work. One of the problems that: we recognise is that people need to be retrained in new skills and others need basic remedial education to help them apply for training places. When I hear Opposition Members talk about the creation of jobs and about training and skill shortages, I find it incredible that in Wolverhampton, where there is high unemployment, the local Labour council has turned down £700,000 for 400 places. That is the sort of initiative that the Labour council takes on employment training.
When I visited a day-care centre for the elderly last week. I met many elderly people who said, "Mrs. Hicks, I hear that your Government is closing down our day centre." When I asked them why that should be so, they said, "We have no more employment training places—what are we to do?" I had to explain to them that their local caring Labour authority was handing back the money for those places and then asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, "Why has the European Commission turned us down for money for training, and why won't our local Member of Parliament, Mrs. Hicks, fight for more money for training?" [Interruption.] I draw from experience in my appraisal of the local Labour council only because of the Opposition motion today. It is far better to talk from experience than simply to waffle.
I want to talk further about the creation of urban development corporations. I was fortunate the other day to go around the London docklands for the first time. I must admit that I had left it too long. It was fantastic. I came back to the House and decided that the whole House should take a day trip to the London docklands because the enthusiasm that I saw there sent me back full of heart. There were so many achievements there such as rebuilding and new factories—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: They were there before.

Mrs. Hicks: I can see what was there before, where the area has not been improved. The area had been so run down that people believed that nothing would ever happen. If we can achieve such rejuvenation through the Black Country urban development corporation, which is


in its early days, it would be extremely encouraging. In the Black Country UDC we have £160 million, which will provide 20,000 jobs, but the Labour party locally says, "If we get back in, we shall do away with all urban development corporations."
I recognise that one of the most disturbing elements of inner-city life concerns law and order. If people do not feel safe in their flats, whether they rent or buy them, that is a disgrace. In Wolverhampton, we have a superb town centre where local people were frightened to shop. They said, "We have a lovely town centre, but we shall avoid it like the plague because it is not safe by day or by night."

Mr. Heffer: Ten years ago your Government were going to solve all that.

Mrs. Hicks: We said, "Let us have video cameras in the town centre," and Wolverhampton was one of the first towns to do so. Local Labour councillors said, "We do not want nasty video cameras because they are an invasion of privacy and a restriction on individuals". [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are."] We have seen the biggest reduction in crime in Wolverhampton and we now have virtually no criminal activity in the town centre. All the other local authorities now say, "Let us follow Wolverhampton's initiative," and who is taking the credit for that? It is the local council.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Give us the figures.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: There is the real spokesman on law and order.

Mrs. Hicks: I happen to have the figures with me. We have had an 18 per cent. downturn compared with the same period last year. Robberies are down by 52 per cent. in Wolverhampton, house burglaries are down by 24 per cent., criminal damage is down by 16 per cent. and wounding is down by 3 per cent. The only figure to show an increase is for the theft of bicycles, which have increased by 38 per cent. The figures speak for themselves, as they do throughout the west midlands. I was delighted when the Government chose Wolverhampton as one of the first towns to take part in the 'safer cities' scheme and we worked hard to be chosen. The scheme involves many threads, not just the Government or the police, but junior crime prevention, probation officers and the local community. If inner-city life is to improve, everyone must be involved. We cannot just leave it to the local council or the Government.
Unless we provide sound education to equip young people with skills for the future in a manufacturing area such as mine, we shall have problems as a result of the decreasing work force. We welcome all initiatives to bring industry and schools closer, and I am glad that we have now taken the initiative with the chamber of commerce to establish a compact in some of the schools in my constituency. I also welcome the city technology colleges. One of the first towns that would have had the offer of a CTC was Wolverhampton, but what happened?

Mr. George Howarth: The council did not want one.

Mrs. Hicks: That is right—the hon. Gentleman knows his party so well. There is a skills shortage in the area, and as a manufacturing area we should be encouraging our

young people in technology, but the council did not want a CTC because it believed that it would be elitist. That is one of the saddest decisions that the council has made.
The Conservative party has shown commitment and vision. Our initiatives speak louder than the hollow words of the Opposition. The Opposition motion is a cheek coming from a party that has not come forward with one policy, but merely destructive opposition to all that we have achieved.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a short debate. Contributions ought to be brief.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will not be tempted to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) down the highways and byways of Wolverhampton although, having spoken just after her in last week's debate on manufacturing, I must say that she makes it sound an interesting place—all the more interesting for her presence there.
Immediately after the last election, the Prime Minister suddenly declared that there was a problem with Britain's inner cities. She has, of course, long since slunk off from the photo call which followed that pronouncement, while the deeply felt problems of the inner cities persist. Wolverhampton may be a shining exception, but what we are seeing develop in Britain—this is not surprising, given the Government's conscious efforts to Americanise this country in so many ways—is an urban under-class, which has become a common and tragic feature of many north American cities.
That new class grows from a combination of many factors, many of which have been referred to this afternoon, such as poor housing, sub-standard education, soaring crime—much of it drug-related—racial tensions and the exodus of the better-off to the suburbs, with a good portion of the job market going with them. There is high youth unemployment, dependency on state benefits and the break-up of family structures. All those factors combine in different ways to contribute to the problem, and each factor tends to reinforce the others.
There is economic decline and that is true of a city such as Glasgow. We have had one by-election recently in Glasgow and another will soon be under way. Glasgow shows the tale of two cities that we see elsewhere. In some areas of Glasgow, there is a high proportion of people who have worked in the traditional industries that have declined and all but gone. Such a massive economic collapse—especially in the traditional sector—has hastened many of the problems of the inner cities.
I will concentrate on one or two issues and suggest one or two of the policy areas that the Government should be addressing which would help the inner cities. They could help London, which has a pitifully high proportion of exiled young Scots who are homeless, or Glasgow, which has made marvellous strides forward in recent years and is a shining example, I readily concede, of a Labour local authority that has worked fully with the grain of the private sector to the benefit of the local environment. However, problems persist in both places and I want to bring some of them to the Minister's attention.
When one considers council accommodation in the Greater London area, one sees that nearly 40 per cent. of families live in council accommodation, much of it in poor condition and much of it suffering, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said, from the massive clawbacks inflicted by the Government on local authority capacity to spend money on repairs and improvements. If one looks across the river, one sees an area with a high elderly population and a history of poor health, much of it due to poverty and to bad social conditions, which were most notable in housing, and a dual problem emerges within welfare provision.
Bad housing, the lack of capital spend and the sort of problems referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about poor management at the local authority end, combine to create a bad social basis which, in itself, is bad for people's health. However, further than that, there is a reluctance on the part of general practitioners to move their practices into inner-city areas because such practices are likely to be small and to draw on a dwindling and elderly population. As that means that the capitation fee is likely to be low, a GP's income will be depressed while the work load will be heavy. I cannot see how the Government's policies on the NHS and on hospitals opting out will in any way assist in any inner-city area that is suffering from such problems.
Surely that policy will result in a concentration of what might be called the more glamorous high-tech operations and a consequent dimunition in the emphasis that is given to basic health care and especially to preventive health care and to recall facilities, not least in women's health, in which, throughout the country but especially in the inner cities, much greater progress must be made.
I turn now to crime, which, as I have said, is often drug-related. The crime rate is high and in too many of our inner cities it is rising. The number of serious crimes reported per 1,000 residents in inner London is more than 50 per cent. above the average for metropolitan areas. It has no less than doubled since 1971. On average there is now a violent crime every hour in Britain's capital city. Non-violent crimes, such as theft and burglary, are now so common that, as all hon. Members will know from their own experience and from their friends and contacts in this city, many people do not even bother to report them either because of the lack of time that is given to following them up or clearing them up or because of the probable low success rate that individuals think will be achieved in redress.
Finally, I underscore one point about education made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, although I do not follow the philosophy of her analysis. It is absolutely essential that teacher morale is improved and that better pay and conditions are achieved for teachers. We should move towards a right to numeracy. That means no non-qualified maths teachers in our schools. Schools should be integrated more closely with their local communities, including the business community. In that context, the compact programme of the much-maligned ILEA must be welcomed.
There is much to be done about inner cities in this country. It must be something of a frustration for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, although this subject became the overriding priority of the Prime Minister after the last election, one suspects that now it does not figure very prominently on her scale of values. Under this Government, that is likely to lead to inner cities

being relegated once again to the position that they occupied during the first eight years of this Conservative Administration.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will not take it amiss if I do not follow him down the avenue that he took, although I shall mention some of the points that he raised.
When the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruschcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made his statement on inner-city policy last year, in the questions that followed I pointed out that inner-city deprivation does not occur only in the inner cities, because one can find similar deprivation in small towns and rural areas throughout the country. That is certainly true of my constituency, in parts of which unemployment is running at over 20 per cent. In the constituency as a whole unemployment is twice the national rate, even though it has fallen from 7,000 to 4,000 in the past two and a half years. The largest group of questions with which I deal in my constituency surgeries relates to welfare benefits, which makes me similar to many hon. Members representing inner-city areas.
My experience of this subject goes back to the days when I was a pupil in a 2,000-pupil comprehensive school in south London. Then I saw at first hand some of the major problems that afflict us to this day in inner cities. That was reinforced by my experience when I began teaching in Bermondsey in south-east London, in what was popularly known as a "sink" secondary modern school, and by my eight years as a councillor in an inner London borough.
That experience is borne out every day when I travel to the House, because when I am in London I live in Forest, Hill and travel through the London boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. As I drive through the Aylesbury estate, which is not a mile and a half from this House, I see boarded-up council properties covered with graffiti; walls that are falling down; street furniture, such as traffic lights, that is out of order or that has been knocked on the side because of accidents that happened perhaps six or nine months ago. I see streets that are littered with paper and which have not been swept for months and where the pavements and the road surfaces are broken. Young saplings that have been planted by the local authority have been broken and snapped off. Yet those are the areas with high spending councils that produce high rates bills for their citizens.
The issue of "the condition of the people", which is how Disraeli described it 100 years ago, will be a major issue at the next election. The key to the problems in our inner cities lies in the fact that those areas have one thing in common: they are run by Labour local authorities. The problems are not the shame of 10 years of Conservative Government but of 40 or 50 years of municipal Socialism. It is those Labour authorities that have done so much to ruin the environment of their citizens and to ensure that they have very little freedom of manoeuvre or of personal choice and responsibility. The "local state"—to quote a Marxist term—which has been in power in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham for years, with the exception of three years in the late 1960s, has been responsible for


taking away people's choice and freedom. It has been responsible for building the large impersonal council estates that have been so badly vandalised.
As I stand at a bus stop that is not two miles from the House, I hear people saying, "Why don't they do something about it?" Those people believe that the local council is responsible for everything. They believe that the amorphous "they" have the duty to ensure that the environment is cleaned up. To a large extent those people are right: "they"—that is, the local authority—have made sure that the local citizens have very little personal power because they live in council houses and must use the local authority schools. They have no choice about the sort of environment in which they live. Such people also have a feeling of desperation because they feel that they cannot do anything to improve their situation themselves. Again, that is to come back to the fact that in those societies people have very little choice or responsibility.
I was most surprised and, indeed, gratified to get support for this thesis from Linda Bellos, the former leader of Lambeth council, who admitted that people in areas such as Lambeth have been
failed by the education system, failed by the anachronistic rating system and, yes, failed by municipal housing".
That was said in a speech at Brunel university on 22 October 1987. At least there is a glimmer of understanding among some members of the Labour party about the reality of the issue.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets reached the stage where 90 per cent. of the housing in the borough was owned by the local authority. People had no opportunity to buy a property or to rent a property from a private landlord if they wished to do so because the local authority had effectively municipalised private housing out of the borough. If one did not come within the criteria for getting a council house, one could not live in the area. It was therefore no surprise that doctors, nurses and teachers were driven away from such boroughs and had to drive into the area from outer London to carry out their work. Many of them gave up the battle and there is now a chronic problem in Tower Hamlets where, according to some surveys, 30 per cent. of the children have to be sent home daily from school because of the lack of teachers.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am pleased that my hon. Friend quoted from the speech by Miss Bellos. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was not present to hear it. It is indicative of Opposition Members' interest in the matter that only half a dozen of them are present. Only one Opposition Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate. Hon. Members have been sitting here patiently waiting to speak.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Only three Labour Back-Bench Members are present for a debate that they selected.
When I was a councillor on the housing committee of the London borough of Lewisham, it was interesting to visit estates in the Surrey docks which we were taking over from the GLC and note the dereliction of the slums that had occurred in about 10 years. I also saw a friend who lived in the Barbican estate, which was built at exactly the

same time and was of exactly the same model, but it was a model estate. That suggests something about council housing and about the way in which tenants are given little control over their own lives. They are not given a say in management, there are no housing co-operatives and there is no chance to buy properties in some London boroughs. That has an effect.
I listened with interest to an Opposition Member shout about yuppies. It seems extremely odd that a group of young people who have the initiative and enterprise to do something about getting jobs and about improving the houses that they buy should be vilified by Opposition Members as people who should not be emulated. That does not mean that we must praise some people's nasty city barrow boy mentality, but it ill becomes eminent personages to go to Tower Hamlets and tell the Bangladeshis there, "Your problems are caused by yuppie gentrification," when, for the first time, the gentrification of inner-city areas caused by people using their own money to improve those areas has started to bring private capital into areas which for so long have been under municipal control.
The same applies to employment. It is no use Labour Members arguing that London has high unemployment when, at the same time, we know that job opportunities in London are good. The black economy in London is thriving. Given the large number of vacancies, there is no reason why anyone in our capital city who wishes to have a job should be out of work.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bennett: I will not give way. I have only a couple of minutes left.
Another interesting point is Labour Members' attitude to docklands. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I have been to docklands and seen the incredible changes that have taken place since 1981, when the urban development corporation was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I was a member of the local authority. I remember the seven wasted years of the Docklands Joint Committee, when the five riparian boroughs and the GLC talked but did nothing at all. It is no use the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) saying that they were planning. The people of docklands wanted jobs for the area and new houses built.
Education is the key to trying to improve many inner-city areas. Opposition Members have unjustifiably made much of the Inner London education authority. On examination results, ILEA came 87th in the league. Wigan, which has similar social problems, came ninth. It is interesting to note that Wigan was able to educate its children at half the cost of ILEA. We must make sure that teachers are paid well according to the regions in which they work, the subject that they teach—if there is a shortage of teachers of certain subjects—and performance. I do not want blanket increases for teachers if poor teachers are equally rewarded.
It is no use just talking about crime in inner cities. There is serious crime in inner cities. Much of it involves mindless attacks on strangers by yobboes on buses and trains and in the street. We must examine what is causing it. It has nothing to do with society or Doctor Hienz Kiosks in the Opposition who tell us that we are all guilty. It is to do with


the personal morality of the people who do the attacking. It comes down to the education and social systems in our schools. We do not give moral education and guidance to our children and tell them when things are right or wrong. Our education services and the Secretary of State for Education and Science should make sure that, in future, the curriculum contains a large element of moral education to try to get those who see no danger or harm in mindless violence to be educated in the values of right and wrong.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I must put the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) right. He talked about Labour authorities. I lived in docklands in the east end for most of my life, and I remember that the Labour council carried out the biggest slum clearance scheme in Europe at a time when Tories were saying, "It is no good giving the workers baths; they will only put coal in them." The Labour council took people out of hovels. Getting a council flat meant a new life, and that was everybody's ambition. Many of those council flats are still desirable and beautiful today, especially those that were built by the GLC. Many of them are run down, but our rate support grant has been stolen by the Government. We have been rate-capped, and Labour councils, and Tower Hamlets council, are now handicapped by insufficient funds to repair and restore properties. Hon. Members should not deride that slum clearance, at it gave new life to thousands of people.
I represent a docklands constituency. It is high on the list of indices that measure poverty and deprivation. I have the plans of the Docklands Joint Committee, which knew what the area wanted and needed, and it was very different from what the Government have imposed upon it. The Docklands Joint Committee was made up of representatives from the GLC, the Department of the Environment and local boroughs—a good mix of local and national bodies. Its overall objective was to use the opportunity provided by the availability of parts of docklands for development to redress housing, social, environmental, employment, economic and communications difficulties. The boroughs provided freedom for similar improvements throughout east and inner London.
We have something very different with the London Docklands development corporation, a neo-colonial quango answerable to nobody but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. That body was imposed upon us. The LDDC's aims were different. It was to regenerate the land, not the community, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has said. Its actions have been detrimental to the community. The availability of that large area of vacant land was an historical opportunity to solve the London housing crisis once and for all. That opportunity has been thrown away.
Let us examine council house building figures since the Government have been in office. The number of council new build completions in east London in 1979 was 4,250. The latest figures available for 1986–87 is 430—a tenth of what it was before. New build completions are grinding to a halt. In 1979, there were 3,613 new build starts. There were 490 in 1986–87.
Conservative Members say that there are too many council houses and that people need to buy their own houses. That is not what local people think. They think

that they need more council housing, not less. There are over 10,000 people on the waiting list. They, those on the transfer list and the homeless think that we in the east end need more council housing, but the Government do not listen to what we say, because it does not suit them and their speculator friends to do so. The number of right-to-buy sales in the five years from 1980–81 to 1985–86 were 16,200. In the last year of that period, the number reduced to 2,716, and it is falling.
Many elderly people and pensioners have told me that they do not want to buy their houses at their time of life. They cannot afford it with the little bit of money that they have left. They would rather enjoy themselves and have some security with a little money in the bank. However, they are afraid that the Government's policy means that their council estates will be sold to private housing organisations. They are afraid that they will lose tenure and eventually be forced out. They have been forced into buying.
Many people have told me that they wished that they could return to being council tenants because they had encountered problems with their properties. For example, people have found asbestos flaking off beneath wallpaper when they have decorated. The local authority claims that it cannot help because it has no money. The Government will not give the local authority money to help, claiming the council must find the money from its own pool. A hell of a lot of people in east London are in a dreadful mess.
People are also finding that the service and other charges are higher than they had thought they would be. They cannot afford those charges as inflation rises. We must remember that 10 per cent. of those who are registered as homeless are mortgage defaulters and that figure should not be taken lightly. Buying a house is not the answer to everyone's dream, although for those who can afford it, it may be desirable.
In 1978 there were 3,601 homeless people in the area. In 1986–87 that figure had risen to 9,037. We should bear in mind that childless couples and single people are not included in that figure. Similarly, it does not include people sleeping in cardboard boxes or on other people's floors. In 1983 in the east London boroughs, there were 438 people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In 1988, there were 1,550. Those figures are an indictment of the Government's policies.
The LDDC has brought in speculators who have built many houses. However, the local population cannot afford them. Very few properties built in my constituency were ever in the affordable bracket. Only the houses built by Barratts at Glengall place and by Comben on the Mudshute were relatively affordable. Local residents were supposed to be given priority for lower-priced houses, but there was a great deal of fiddling by unwelcome speculators.
Thames Television inquired into the fiddling and found that one group of business men had bought 15 properties. In other cases, properties were bought and resold without being occupied. People bought rent books to show a local address. There were 10 dubious sales at the Caledonian wharf, which were actually stopped. Some of the Cascades flats were bought and offered for resale while the scheme was still just a hole in the ground.
We need consider only how the price of those apartments and houses has risen to see that this was not housing for local people, but simply an opportunity for the speculators to get rich. In 1985, a two-bedroom flat in


London Yard on the Isle of Dogs cost £58,191—much more than local people could afford. In 1988, it cost £160,000. In 1984 a one-bedroom flat on Clippers quay, also on the Isle of Dogs, cost £40,000. In 1986, it cost £109,000. A two-bedroomed flat which cost £39,495 rose in three years to £199,995. A three-bedroomed house, which is what most families want, rose from £60,000 to £175,000. In large part, that housing was bought by speculators and resold, or bought by people from outside the area who had large incomes and large pockets.
Many young people with high salaries took on heavy mortgages. Some of them are now unhappy with what is happening. They find that life under the dictatorship of the LDDC is not so great. Some of the houses are jerry built. I have been told of an estate where the land is subsiding and water has come flooding in. I have heard of cases where a property was purchased for a great deal of money in a quiet court, but one flat was turned into a wine bar and residents had to suffer the noise of car doors banging late at night. Similarly, people complain of noise from across the river from the Victoria deep water metal crushing depot. I have also heard that some roads are covered in mud when it rains. Bus drivers have told me that some of the roads on the Isle of Dogs are becoming dangerous because of some of the developers' sloppy work.
As the market drops, I believe that Canary wharf could become a great ghost edifice like some of those in New York. It is meant to be the biggest office development in Europe. It will create huge wind funnels. My area does not need that development.
Housing action trusts were another of the Government's policies for inner cities. We are all aware of the east enders' reactions to HATs. All the apartment houses down the Mile End road had huge banners hanging from them attacking and denouncing HATs. The tenants did not want them and they made that quite clear to the Minister when he met them at mass meetings. The Government had to retreat on HATs. The tenants were ready to blockade themselves in their own homes to stop anyone entering.
The tenants knew that, under HATs, after several years their estates would be sold to speculators, their rents would no longer be affordable and they would lose tenure. I went into places which had water streaming down the walls, yet even those tenants preferred to stick with the local authority rather than have a HAT. They did not trust the Government.
The pick-a-landlord scheme is also causing terror in areas like the east end. People feel secure with the local authority. They can vote for it and they can vote it out. They can bring pressure to bear. They can speak their minds to local councillors. However, the Government's schemes will remove their democratic right and control over housing. Tory Members who talk about Government proposals giving tenants' control are talking through their HATs. That is all nonsense.
The east enders have seen two bodies which they respected and supported destroyed by the Government—the Greater London Council and the Inner London education authority. An opinion poll showed that 90 per cent. of Londoners did not want ILEA abolished, but the Government disregarded them. How can the Government claim that they are a democratic Government?
County hall, our city hall, which belongs to the community, will be sold off, probably to become hotels and expensive apartment houses so that rich people can enjoy the river. Londonders will lose all rights to that building. That is typical of the Government's approach to the inner cities. They take away all the best places.
I warn people from other towns who have been told that they are going to have an urban development corporation that the LDDC, which is supposed to be the jewel in the Government's crown and the model UDC, has pinched pieces of land along the river, canals and bridlepaths. It has pinched the most pleasant places which go to rich people and local people do not get a look in. The children of local people are forced to move far away. That is bad for the community, especially for an aging community.
Housing has been for a very long time the most urgent problem in the inner cities and in east London in particular. Jobs are also very important. Before I made my maiden speech in the House two years ago, I carried out investigations and discovered that, despite all the public money which has been poured into the LDDC—money which was never available for the plans of the Joint Docklands Committee and the local authorities—there has been a net loss of jobs. A month ago I asked another series of questions and found, rather to my surprise, that there was a slightly bigger net loss of jobs, despite everything that has happened in the past two years.
Health care is important in an area with a rising population. Unlike the rest of the country, in Tower Hamlets there has been an explosion in the birth rate, bringing housing and health problems in its train. Two weeks ago, I held a meeting with general practitioners from Tower Hamlets in this building and they were unanimously against the Government's proposals for the Health Service. They have been denounced as greedy, as liars, but in fact they are devoted people. One has to be devoted to choose to work in east London.
At that meeting I took 12 pages of notes on why they knew—not felt—that the Government's proposals would damage the doctor-patient relationship, damage the interests of doctors, particularly in the smaller rundown practices that they are trying to build up, and damage the interests of their patients. They feel that people will have to make long journeys for operations and that there will be no continuity of provision, because, whereas a district health authority may make a contract with Wolverhampton for hip replacement operations one year, the next year somewhere else may be cheaper. For the first time, there will be a money limitation on drug provision. That is already frightening people who require a lot of drugs.
Everyone is worried about the London hospital. That has always been a community hospital, deeply integrated with the local community, but it is now expressing an interest in opting out. Neither the doctors nor the community health council were consulted. The London hospital has expressed an interest in opting out without consultation.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Opting out of what?

Ms. Gordon: Opting out of the Health Service in the long term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have met


officials who are already talking about providing operations more cheaply than private hospitals. In the long term, that means opting out of the Health Service.

Mr. Hind: Disinformation.

Ms. Gordon: It is not disinformation. We are destined to have a two-tier Health Service. Hospitals such as the London hospital will start by changing their policies, providing heart transplants and glamorous medicine rather than serving the local community and will eventually opt out of the Health Service.

Mr. Hind: They will not be allowed.

Ms. Gordon: Whether they are allowed to or not, in the meantime local people will have to travel far to obtain the services that they need. If the Government's proposals are put into effect, the London hospital will no longer be a community hospital.
The Inner London education authority has been building new schools and extra classrooms, but east end schools cannot attract teachers. When there was council house building, there was also a key worker scheme, but that no longer exists. Doctors and teachers cannot come to the east end because they cannot afford to buy the houses that are being built there by the speculators whom the LDDC has allowed in.
The hon. Member for Pembroke spoke of teachers being paid by results. Payment by result was abandoned as an uncivilised method of education in the last century. It is rather surprising to hear the last century's ideas being trotted out again as new ones.
The hon. Member suggested that there should be regional agreements on wages. I f regional agreements on wages replace national arbitration, teachers will go from areas with poor councils, many problems and deprivation, to the richer areas. Instead of the stability that children need, teachers will be on the move even more than they are now and there will be fewer teachers in Tower Hamlets rather than more. Such policies will damage education in the east end of London.
Again, those policies are designed to create a two-tier system. Just as we shall have a two-tier Health Service with hospitals opting out, so we shall have a two-tier education service, with working-class children given minimum education, as happened before the Education Act 1944. Only a few working-class kids who are more academically able and quicker off the mark will be educated alongside middle-class and rich children. They will have a different kind of education and curriculum. Time will prove me right. That is what the Government's policies are designed to create, when and as they can introduce them. However, they will not be able to do so, because this Government will not last beyond the next election.
In the east end of London, transport is developerled,which again is not what the east end needs. The docklands light railway was welcome, but it is not safe transport. The doors are not safe, there is nobody at the stations and at the moment it does not even operate at night or during the weekend. I have been told by LDDC officials that the computer system does not work well. The trains still stop at the ghost station of Canary wharf, and no one knows how to prevent them from doing so. Anyone who travels down the A13 will see that transport in the east

end is a complete mess. There is a constant snarl-up on that road. There are traffic jams at 9 pm and during the weekends.
Just as the inner cities need an integrated health policy with primary, secondary and local community care implementing the Griffiths report's recommendations, which the Government are so carefully ignoring, so they need an integrated transport policy. The GLC's "Fares Fair" policy was right. That was designed to take people out of their cars and on to public transport. Just as we need more affordable housing, so we need more affordable public transport.
I cannot finish without talking about the environment, about which the Prime Minister talks so much. It is proposed to run a road through Victoria park, the only large park in the east end. Mile End park will be encroached upon. The Tower Hamlets environmental trust has identified 36 small pieces of land, designated as public open space, which are under threat. Such pieces of land are important to those living in flats. They are needed for taking a walk and for walking the dog, and the lives of children centre around them. They are under threat because everything is becoming market-led and he developers have their greedy eyes upon them.
We wanted local jobs and workshops so that people could use their skills to work at local trades. We could have had a riverside walk. This is an historic area. There are places of interest that could have been developed. Instead, there are expensive flats along the riverside, and the are built right up to the river's edge so there can be no riverside walks. No tourist will be able to walk along there from the tower; nor will the local people. Even part of Island gardens on the river front is under threat, as is the King Edward memorial park. The interests of the local people and the environment come second to the market.
More money has been poured into the police. There are many new inspectors and other high officials in the police force, but there are not so many extra men in the lower ranks on the streets to prevent crime. Their number has hardly increased at all.
Local people are the experts. They know what they need and want. They express their wishes, desires and demands through the locally-elected authorities, some of which have been abolished and others of which are being rate-capped so that they have no money to improve their areas.
Local people need affordable rents, affordable transport and local democracy. They do not want the form of dictatorship that is being imposed on them because it is not acting in their interest but in the interest of the profit makers. It has brought no benefits to the local community and it is driving many of them out of the inner cities.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) spoke for over 20 minutes in this comparatively short debate and throughout her speech she presented no new ideas and displayed no vision for the future. Her speech showed that there is no leadership in the Labour party in London or in the inner cities.
I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who I know is keen to make his electioneering speech for the Vauxhall by-election. In view of the amount of time that his hon. Friend the Member for


Bow and Poplar occupied, it will not be possible for me to permit him to do that and at the same time make a reasonable speech myself.
In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—I do not think the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar could have been listening to him—said that one way to improve education in the inner cities would be to introduce regional pay variations and give financial incentives to people to teach in the inner cities. Perhaps it is another failing of Labour Members that they do not listen to the comments of their colleagues.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook painted a picture which had little relationship to reality, so I shall cover some of the background that we should have in mind in this important debate. Unemployment is now at its lowest for 18 years, with a fall of 1 million in the unemployment register since the 1987 election campaign. There has also been a record fall—of 500,000 in the last two years—in the number of long-term unemployed. Indeed, long-term unemployment has fallen faster than total unemployment, and that has been reflected in inner-city areas, where unemployment generally fell by 22 per cent. in the year to March 1989, and in the same year, long-term unemployment in inner-city areas fell by 22 per cent.
During the week, I live in the inner-city area of Lambeth—in the parliamentary constituency of Vauxhall—and I suspect that my hon. Friends and I have done more to represent the people there than has the erstwhile hon. Member for Vauxhall who is set to go elsewhere.
In the inner-city areas we have seen a new enterprise culture, with self-employment on the increase. On average, 500 small firms have set up each week since 1979, many of them in inner-city areas. Unlike the depressing future projected by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, the prosperity of the inner cities will turn on competitive businesses earning commercial returns. The entrepreneurs and members of the business community whom she decries because they are coming into inner-city areas are the very people who will generate the prosperity which will provide the jobs for her constituents and those of other hon. Members.
We must continue to encourage private sector development and work to enable inner-city residents to benefit fully from the regeneration of their own neighbourhoods. Since the beginning of March this year, the Government have announced 10 new schools-industry compacts, five new safer cities programmes, three new inner-city task forces and four new initiatives to help inner-city residents to take part in employment training. Compare that with the lack of new ideas in the speeches of Opposition Members.
At last in our inner cities we are beginning to get a grip on ensuring good education in our schools, with a national curriculum, testing assessments and a new academic rigour which is raising standards and encouraging parental input. My young son goes to an inner-city school in Lambeth. It is an indictment of ILEA that vast numbers of black children attending that and other schools in inner-city areas go to supplementary schools on Saturdays. Up till

now, it has been felt that the standard of education they received in inner-London schools has been insufficient to meet their needs.
Only now is the Labour party beginning to recognise that black and other parents in inner-city areas want their children to achieve proper standards of literacy and numeracy so that they can compete in the world outside. We are providing the resources to enable them to do that. Spending per pupil increased by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and now, the pupil-teacher ratio has improved from 18·9 in 1979 to 17 today, and average class sizes have been falling. That is all good news.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave a litany of figures about inner-city crime, but his figures did not reflect the facts. There were falls in recorded crime in practically every metropolitan area last year, and in London, recorded crime was down by 5 per cent. in the 12 months to September 1988. The strength of the metropolitan police force has been increased by 5,550 officers in recent years and a further 300 posts have been approved for 1988–89.
Whatever yardstick one wishes to use—be it developing enterprise culture, improving education and facilities or increasing resources for the police and tackling crime—in all spheres the Conservatives have introduced and are introducing positive, realistic and worthwhile initiatives.
From Opposition Members we hear only a counsel of despair, often unrelated to the facts. For example, in the last week Labour Members have tried to suggest that many of our inner cities are gripped by deep poverty. In fact, the Government are spending almost £50 billion this year, about one third of all Government spending on social security. Real take-home pay for a family on average earnings with two children has gone up by 27 per cent. under Conservative rule. It barely rose under Labour. Tax thresholds have come down, taking large numbers of people out of tax, and people at all levels are better off than they were in 1979.
Those are all facts that the electors of Vauxhall and other inner city constituencies will have good cause to remember. Indeed, I suspect that it will be hard for Labour campaigners to find people in Vauxhall who can say with honesty that they are worse off now in real terms than they were in 1979.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has been quoting general figures. Lambeth borough council commissioned independent consultants to produce a survey of incomes to show what has happened to earnings in Lambeth over the last 10 years or so. That survey made it clear that the bottom 25 per cent. of the population have suffered a continuing reduction in their real standard of living. Those are incontrovertible figures, produced, as I say, not by the council but by independent consultants. In other words, the poor have got poorer and the rich have got richer, and that is the real truth of the inner cities.

Mr. Baldry: I categorically and emphatically deny that the people of Lambeth or anywhere else in Britain have got poorer in real terms in the last 10 years. The safety net below which nobody can fall has improved dramatically during those years, and that is why the poor of Lambeth as of any other area, are better off.
The hon. Gentleman confuses the position by comparing the standard of living of one section of people with that of another section. We must see that poor people


have a level below which they cannot fall. On that basis, Conservative policies have ensured that everyone in the community—single-parent families, pensioners, the longterm disabled—are all better off in real terms than they were in 1979.
Inner-city recovery is on the way. The cycle of decline has been broken. Eight years of continued economic growth have created a climate in which enterprise can flourish. This year, nearly £3·5 billion of Government measures will help to carry that enterprise and prosperity into inner cities. Those Opposition Members whose response to every problem is the phrase "more money" should take on board that figure of £3·5 billion. Investment is strong. Unemployment is falling. New education and training policies are in place. Recorded crime is down. Our cities are developing a new and positive image. The simple and straightforward truth is that the inner cities are safe in the hands of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I agree with members on the Government Front Bench on only two points. First, I agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that inner-city problems did not begin with a Conservative Government. However, my argument is that those problems became worse under the Conservatives. Secondly, I agree that unemployment has fallen—but it is equally true to say that, in the first five or six years of Conservative Government, unemployment was at a much higher level than under Labour.
In shoving so-called facts across the Chamber at each other, we often risk missing the whole point, which is that we live in a society in which unemployment is liable to increase and decrease at certain times; in which there will be relative poverty and real poverty, and in which people will be much better off at other times. We have not addressed the real problems of the inner cities and the people who live there.
Not all inner-city housing is bad. It is nonsense to say that every inner-city area is full of poor housing. But it does exist, and in some cases there is no housing provision at all. That is true also of city outskirts. Some people living in the inner cities suffer real poverty and from other problems that developed over the years. One of them is high unemployment, which affects not only the ethnic minorities. Problems are also faced by young people of 15 or 16 years of age who have never known a wage packet at the end of the week. They have no idea of the dignity of being employed. It is vital that people have jobs.
The difficulty of solving those problems is that there are two distinct approaches to doing so. The Government believe that they can all be solved by private enterprise, and that if one can only secure private investment and encourage the involvement of business men, that will be sufficient to deal with the situation.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Lady disagrees, but I remember what happened in Liverpool after the riots that took place not only in Toxteth but other cities. The Heseltine proposals involved a combination of private and public enterprise and private and public investment. We all know

what happened to that scheme. The majority of the Cabinet turned it down because it did not want public involvement or problems solved partly by public effort.
I am not denying that some good things have been done in Liverpool. I would be damn silly to deny something worth while which offers employment to a few of my constituents. Even minimal employment is better than no employment at all. The garden festival was very nice while it lasted, but the number of real jobs it created was very small. I refer also to the new dock developments. There is a new shopping complex, and the new Liverpool Tate gallery—of which I am much in favour, but some Liverpool people who have seen the exhibits there did not think they were much, and I agree. There is also a new yuppie housing estate. What is really needed are all those developments plus new jobs.
Creating jobs means establishing new industry. How is that to be done? There used to be a system of regional assistance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) claimed that Birmingham had suffered because of Labour incentive schemes that encouraged new business ventures in areas of high unemployment, but that type of incentive is still needed. I go further: there is a need for public ownership and developments so that we can stipulate the location of new industry.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Hicks) referred to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Liverpool has practically solved the problem of bed-and-breakfast families, and was slaughtered for it. Liverpool's Labour councillors were called all the names one could think of for building houses—nice, lovely, semi-detached houses for ordinary people. I am sure that some Conservative Members think that those houses are too good for the working class. The money to build them came not from the Government, because they made massive cuts in local authority grants. Instead, Liverpool council borrowed money from private enterprise at higher rates. Nevertheless, it had an obligation to provide decent accommodation. That policy is being continued under the new Labour administration.
Liverpool has also new sports centres and parks, to provide the city with new lungs. However, much more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) claims that we have no new ideas. I can tell him of one new idea that I hope will be adopted when a Labour Government are elected. The first thing that a Labour Government should do is bring together all the local authorities and trade unions in the area—and I do not mind if the employers' organisations and Government Departments are represented as well. They should sit down and decide immediately what is required and how much the Government can provide to help to overcome the problem.
I should have liked to say much more, but I shall conclude by making one more point to the Government. Some of my hon. Friends do not seem to understand why all those wonderful houses were being built in parts of London. Well, I understand it; I understand why they have been built along the line of the docks in Liverpool as well. The Government want to create a yuppie area where they hope that people will vote Tory and get rid of Labour Members of Parliament: their objective is as simple and as silly as that. What they should be doing is acting to meet the real needs of the people in such areas, and my party, if it were in government, would have the policies to do that.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is a well-known fact that the inner cities were discovered by the Conservative party during the last election campaign. That has been thoroughly chronicled. In next to no time the Prime Minister, with sensible shoes and handbag, was standing on a piece of waste ground in—if I remember correctly—Stockton, announcing its imminent colonisation. I am afraid that I must tell the Government what they are likely to know already—that those who live in those areas are unmoved and probably sceptical.
We learned very little from the Chancellor of the Duchy's speech, except that he has a deep admiration for the politics of Mr. Keva Coombes—which shows a certain breadth of vision—and that he reads the trade supplements thoroughly, albeit with a rather naive enthusiasm.
I want to say a few words about the problems in Scotland, where the scene is perhaps a little different but will nevertheless, I suspect, be familiar to many of my colleagues from south of the border. When the Secretary of State for Scotland makes his speech, I expect that we shall hear a good deal about GEAR—the Glasgow eastern area renewal scheme—and, no doubt, about the merchant city. Those things are, of course, worthy of comment. The GEAR scheme involved public investment of £300 million over nearly a decade. As the Secretary of State knows, the Government have been criticised a good deal for cutting short before its time a scheme started by the Labour Government, but I welcome what was achieved, and what has happened in the merchant city. The partnership between the public and private sectors reflects credit on all who were involved, including the city council.
I hope that we shall not encounter something that has become very familiar in Scottish politics—the somewhat cynical opportunism with which Scottish Office Ministers have dealt with such matters. Double standards are well to the fore. In Scotland, if one brick is laid upon another or if a sod is turned in any part of the country, particularly in an inner city, a junior Minister from the Scottish Office will be there, appropriately enough, to take the plaudits and the credit.

Mr. George Robertson: And the photographs.

Mr. Dewar: Indeed.
Ministers tend to boast about the services provided in inner-city areas, such as education and housing. We are led to believe that all the phenomenal progress is due to the good heartedness and deep belief in high public spending of such unlikely figures as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Dewar: No, I will not give way as I have only a short time in which to speak.
Within days, the same figures are usually being paraded in a slightly different context to illustrate the profligacy and irresponsibility of the same councils. I am glad to see the Minister nodding in cheerful agreement—clearly he has enjoyed some recent examples. The merchant city is certainly an example of inner-city development in Glasgow, but one has only to walk a few hundred yards to

find oneself in a very different environment. For reasons that my Scottish colleagues will understand, I have been spending quite a bit of time there recently.
As every hon. Member knows, unemployment in Scotland is far higher than it is in Great Britain as a whole. Seasonally adjusted figures published only a few days ago showed a Scottish unemployment rate of 9·7 per cent. However, much as we may argue about the basis on which those figures are compiled, one fact remains clear—that the Scottish unemployment rate is about 50 per cent. above the national average. In whole wards, not just collections of streets, in the inner cities of Glasgow, and also in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee, unemployment is as high as 25 or 30 per cent.
I make no apology for mentioning Glasgow, Central, which is very much in the minds of everyone in Scottish politics at present. It is relevant, as it has the fifth highest unemployment rate of all the parliamentary constituencies of Great Britain and the worst in Scotland. It is a classic deprived inner-city area, where such problems are very real, and it has taken its share of the collapse of employment in Scotland. Regional employment changes mean that the number of employed and self-employed people has fallen by 118,000 in the past decade, and many instances have been in the inner cities.
There are more homeless people and more social problems—for instance, the problem of simply maintaining housing stock—and no Government can be complacent about the facts. In 1979, 450,000 claimants and their dependants were in receipt of supplementary benefit. About 830,000 now receive income support. That represents the growth of poverty, and anyone with any knowledge of the demography and social shape of Scotland will know that much of that poverty is concentrated in inner cities, as are the problems of peripheral housing schemes.
If the Minister wishes to see the impact on the health and social life of the population, he should look at "Glasgow: Healthy Cities Project", a position statement published recently by a weighty committee chaired by Dr. Thomson of the Greater Glasgow health board and including—to their credit—a number of the Minister's political friends. There is no doubt that the problem exists and can be seen.
What is disappointing is the Scottish response. We have had "New Life for Urban Scotland", a typical new-style Scottish Office glossy. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) by telling him that it has the merit of containing only one picture of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It dealt largely with the peripheral schemes in Wester Hailes, Castlemilk, Whitfield and Ferguslie park. I make no complaint about that—they have real problems—but there was no mention of the inner cities.
It would be hard to say where the cash is for the inner-cities programme in Scotland—the equivalent of what the Government are claiming to be providing south of the border. Scottish Enterprise is to retain its existing budget—the Housing Corporation budget combined with the Scottish Development Agency budget. There is little evidence that even the substantial £350 million budget of Scottish Homes has not been largely carved out of money that would otherwise have been available for housing in any event.
I cannot go into detail, but I should say that I have looked long and hard for this new money. I have consulted


people who are not in politics, the technicians and practical men who administer such matters, and they have to concede that they cannot point to where it is—not, I believe, because they are blind or lack expertise, but because the new money is simply not there. The damage to the inner cities is being done by the Government's general policies—for instance, the housing policy that has allowed the figure that can be taken into the housing revenue account to fall from £125 million to £3 million, has allowed the contribution for every local authority house in Scotland to be cut from £238 to around £60 and has taken a cumulative total of billions from the rate support grant settlement.
The inner-city areas will be particularly hit by the poll tax, because they are exactly the kind of poverty-stricken areas that will be left to pay a significantly higher percentage of local revenue raised than they did under the previous system. I challenge the Secretary of State to deny that. We have seen the murder of regional policy and regional incentives.
I cannot resist a small competition to which hon. Members might like, in 15 seconds, to produce the answer. I ask the House what Julius Caesar would say if he landed on our shores today. I have the answer, because the Prime Minister told a doubtless astonished Conservative party conference at Perth that he would have no hesitation in saying, "I came, I saw, I invested." I must confess that my only regret is that the Secretary of State did not manage it in Latin.
I recognise that there has been a remarkable change in the Government's approach to Scottish matters over the past few years. It used to be fashionable to abuse the Scots, to tell them that their story was a cautionary tale of the dependency culture and that all their faults were their own fault, but there has been an about-turn. We have invented the economic miracle. We are told that Scotland is the birthplace of Adam Smith, a perfect enterprise economy of which we can all be proud.
It is unfair perhaps to dwell on conference speeches and I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State because it cannot be easy to know what to say to Scottish Tories gathered in Perth. I did not greatly admire his suggestion that my constituents were building frigates like fury or the hopeful suggestion that together we shall climb mountains. That is not in my immediate plans.
What I welcome—I make a serious point here—is the rather tentative suggestion that the Secretary of State is interested in putting peace on the agenda in Scottish politics and building bridges between the Government and the people of Scotland. I do not want to overstate what he said. He described a case for a modest period of consolidation, but against the general background of argument, even that is of some significance. The tragedy was that the next day the Prime Minister arrived and stamped on the Secretary of State, making it clear that any bridges that he might build would quickly be torn down.
Looking at the situation in the inner cities and in the Scottish economy generally, I hope that the Secretary of State did not make that speech simply to deceive. I hope that he meant what he said because it is important to Scotland and to the inner cities and areas of deprivation that we have a change of direction and that there are signs of a change of heart on the part of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be doing us a signal service if he showed a certain independence today

and indicated that that change of heart will come and that some of the Government's damaging policies will be abandoned.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when he explained to the House why he could not remain throughout the debate, might have undertaken to read the speeches that we have heard this evening because he would have heard not only from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but also from four of my hon. Friends a devastating response which must have made the Opposition wonder why they had chosen this subject for debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), who knows Birmingham better even that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, pointed to the massive improvements in the inner city of Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), in an effective fighting speech, pointed to the priorities for urban policy and the inadequacies of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that those localities which have had Labour-controlled local authorities for years, which are the highest spending local authorities, are those which seem still to have the most difficult problems, perhaps because of the control that has been exercised on them during those years. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) correctly emphasised that only by encouraging the business community to help create prosperity in those localities can one achieve the desired results.
The most interesting and extraordinary remark by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was his reference to enterprise zones. He suggested that it was only inner-city landlords who had benefited from enterprise zones. I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not agree with that, as his right hon. Friend has clearly not visited Clydebank, which was made an enterprise zone in 1981. Had he done so, he would know that in the first six years after its designation it was not inner-city landlords who benefited—400 new businesses with more than 4,000 new jobs were created in that enterprise zone.

Mr. Dewar: We welcome the progress made in the Clydebank enterprise zone, one third of which falls within my constituency, but does the Secretary of State agree that the main basis for that success has been the work of the Scottish Development Agency and the heavy public investment that has gone into the area?

Mr. Rifkind: It was the work of the Scottish Development Agency with the funds provided by the Government. I am happy to acknowledge that.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Garscadden had attached his name to the Opposition motion. At this point, I wish to do something unusual, Madam Deputy Speaker, and refer to the terms of the Opposition motion as judged against the speech by the hon. Gentleman and what has been achieved. The hon. Gentleman may care to read the motion—he has probably not done so up to now, so it would be useful for him to be reminded of it.
The motion refers to
total neglect of the inner city areas.
Presumably that includes the city of Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman referred to the GEAR project in the east end of Glasgow. The motion that he has signed says that it has led to a "reduction in investment" over the past nine years. The hon. Gentleman confirms that. Does he regard £300 million of Government investment and £200 million of private sector investment in the GEAR area as a reduction in investment?
The Opposition motion refers to
a decline in the quality of housing.
Does that apply to the GEAR area where 6,000 houses have been either built or improved as a result of the Government's inner urban policy? The motion to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name also refers to the decline in schools. We know that the most controversial issue in Strathclyde at the moment is the attempt of the Labour-controlled authority to close schools, not to keep them open.
When the motion that the hon. Gentleman has signed refers to what is described as
a deterioration in adequate health care",
does he have in mind Glasgow—the best-funded health authority in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to have a reputation for being laid back and rather composed. Now tantrums at the Dispatch Box are the order of the day. His intemperate remarks about the closure of schools show that he has not read his own Department's circulars about how he expects education authorities to bring school accommodation into line with the fall in school rolls.
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's praise for the GEAR project, which was planned and started by the Labour Government. Does he not accept that the impact of the community charge or poll tax, on housing benefit and other benefit changes mean a growth in poverty? Does he not accept that industrial investment in Scotland is now running at a lower rate than in 1979?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman carefully avoided the terms of the motion to which his name is attached. We are not talking about industrial investment in Scotland but about investment in the inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman knows that in GEAR, which is the biggest example of inner-urban investment in the United Kingdom, not only has investment been dramatic, not only has housing been restored and renovated, not only has health care been the most generous in any part of the United Kingdom but, as his own Labour-controlled district council has said, the urban regeneration there is the best example in the United Kingdom of what inner-city regeneration can do.
Let us consider the attitude of the Opposition with regard to inner-urban policy. The hon. Gentleman concentrated his remarks on the city of Glasgow. We all know that there is a great deal of very proper pride in what has been achieved in Glasgow over the past 10 years. I paid a tribute to all those who have been involved, including Glasgow district council, Strathclyde regional council, local residents and the Scottish Office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to acknowledge that.
If we wish to see who has given the lead in achieving these objectives, the hon. Gentleman might care to mention the fact that the present Conservative Government and the Scottish Office provided the funding for Glasgow's conference and exhibition centres, 50 per cent. of the funding for the Burrell gallery, and all the funding for the Glasgow garden festival as well as designating Glasgow a city of culture for 1990. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give credit where credit is due, he should bear that in mind.
My hon. Friends have demolished the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and the hon. Member for Garscadden does not need me to demolish his argument—he has only to read the Opposition motion to realise how inadequate his speech was. On that basis, I invite the House to vote for the Government amendment and to reject the Opposition motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 288.

Division No. 209]
[7pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Fearn, Ronald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)






Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Charles
Prescott, John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Primarolo, Dawn


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Lambie, David
Randall, Stuart


Lamond, James
Redmond, Martin


Leadbitter, Ted
Reid, Dr John


Leighton, Ron
Richardson, Jo


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George


Livsey, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey. William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wall. Pat


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliott
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Atkinson, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael





Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Irving, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbastonj


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing H)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heddle, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howard, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)






Powell, William (Corby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Price, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stevens, Lewis


Redwood, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Renton, Tim
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Rhodes James, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Riddick, Graham
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Ray


Shelton, Sir William
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. David Maclean and


Squire, Robin
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 195.

Division Number 210]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aitken, Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim





Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heddle, John
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Janman, Tim
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh






Rost, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rowe, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Scott, Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shelton, Sir William
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Mr. David Maclean.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Crowther, Stan


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clay, Bob
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Gould, Bryan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce





Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Haynes, Frank
Murphy, Paul


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Nellist, Dave


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Ingram, Adam
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Ruddock, Joan


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Vaz, Keith


Madden, Max
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Maxton, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliott
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes recent falls in unemployment in the inner cities and the increasing level of investment in their regeneration; notes with approval the growing commitment of the private sector and the improved partnership between the private sector, voluntary organisations and central and local government in tackling inner city problems; and looks forward to continued progress under Action for Cities and other programmes designed to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom share fully in the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that this Bill is due to have its Third Reading tonight, but in Committee it was not discussed on its own. It went in with another Bill that had been given a Second Reading—the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. That Bill is missing from tonight's debate.
Is it in procedural order for this to happen, because it means that we cannot have a full debate on the Committee's proceedings?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House on this matter. He is quite correct to say that the two Bills were committed to the same Private Bill Committee and that only one of them is now before the House; but I cannot speculate on why the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill has not yet been reported by the Committee. There is no procedural impediment to the House proceeding with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman has arguments to deploy about why this Bill should not be read a Third time today, I am sure that he will advance them during the debate.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Committee has considered the Bill and—

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a previous occasion when the Bill was being debated, I asked on a point of order whether it was hybrid, and Mr. Deputy Speaker made a ruling, with the aid of the Clerk, who had gone through the Bill and was convinced that it fell within the private Bill procedure. Both Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means accepted that it was in order because the Clerk was acting for and on behalf of the Speaker's Office. One man made that decision, a man who was not a Member of Parliament, and as far as I am aware, they crucified the only man who never made a mistake.
Even at this late stage I ask you to rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill is a hybrid for the following reason. The Committee's report said:
In effect, we have been invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade … The Committee does not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small Committee".
That point was agreed by both the promoters of the Bill and the people who were opposing it, Mr. Feickert, Mr. Morrison and Sir Frank Layfield. It concluded:
The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national Government.
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the fact that, if a Bill affects a national interest, it must be hybrid and a Bill that the Government should be introducing. Therefore, I ask you to rule at this late stage, in view of the conclusions made by the Committee, that the Bill is hybrid and therefore should not be debated.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the Bill is not hybrid. Its provisions fall within our private Bill procedure. I have read carefully the report of the Committee and I am prepared to allow a wide debate on Third Reading so that hon. Members may refer to the report.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you explain why the amendments that have been tabled have not been selected? The House is entitled to such an explanation, because many of these amendments are important. I am aware that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but that should not preclude hon. Members from moving amendments on Third Reading. I would welcome an explanation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think I can clear this matter up. Had there been no points of order and had I been allowed to make a statement, I would have done so on behalf of Mr. Speaker, who has examined with great care the verbal amendments tabled to the Bill. He is satisfied that all of them either alter the effect of the Bill and are therefore out of order, or are not necessary for the correction of the Bill, which is the purpose of verbal amendments. Therefore, he has not selected them. Furthermore, in accordance with practice, Mr. Speaker has not selected the six-months amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and others.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, about three Fridays ago, there was an amendment to a Third Reading. It came about because the Government had passed on to a Back-Bench Tory Member a Bill that is called, in parliamentary terms, an "off-the-shelf" Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not know what was in it, and apologised for that. He was given the Bill, it was nodded through its Second Reading and not amended in Committee and then we came to Third Reading three Fridays ago. The Bill, the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, was aimed at extending the areas where smoke control could be applied by local authorities and central Government, but it had the wrong long title, which was aimed at repealing all the Clean Air Acts.
The Government were very embarrased, as was the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. If only he had known what was in the Bill. As a result, at this embarrassing moment, the Clerks and Mr. Speaker together were able to find a way around the matter. Because it was not the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which will put tremendous pressure on the balance of trade, the Government went along—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: Just a minute. There is no need to start shuffling yet.
The Government went along and changed the title of the Bill on Third Reading, and they thought they could do this on the nod. However, one or two of us found out about it. This process had not been used for 19 years. The amendment did not result because somebody was earnestly trying, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), to amend a


Bill. It was because the Government and the Back-Bench Member had presented the Bill without its proper title. The Government managed to find a way around that.
I find it odd in this place, where we are supposed to be looking after the interests of everybody, that when on Third Reading, we table 20-odd amendments that are sensible and will change the nature of the Bill, they are swept aside by some ruling or another. However, if the Government make a cock-up of it, they are able to get away with an amendment on Third Reading.
As it happens, the Bill will have to go to another place, which may amend it. However, I say that this Bill should go back. As to all the more than 20 amendments to the Bill that have been tabled, Mr. Speaker should he called upon to enact the ruling that he gave three Fridays ago.
While I am about it, I want to know whether all those 70 Tory Members of Parliament who have connections with firms that trade in South Africa, will declare their interest. I want to know whether they will stand up and tell us how many free trips to South Africa they have had, how many are members of the goose-stepping tendency, how many are representing Johannesburg. We should know, because the Bill will allow South African coal to come into this country, cause a massive burden on the balance of payments and line the pockets of Tory Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: On the second point, I am sure that all hon. Members who have an interest will declare it. On the first point, I am certain that the hon. Member will understand that I have no authority to alter or vary Mr. Speaker's decision, which I am sure the House will uphold and respect.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the occupier of the Chair, you have to ensure that justice is done. As I understand it, on a public Bill, if there is a tied vote in Committee and the Chair of the Committee has to give a casting vote, that more or less guarantees that the matter is considered again when it returns to the Floor of the House, because it would be wrong for the person occupying the Chair to decide the details of a Bill.
Throughout the Committee proceedings on this Bill, the votes were tied to two each way with one of those two people acting as Chair and giving a casting vote. As I understand it, in those circumstances it is reasonable for the issues then to be further considered by the House. None of the amendments has been selected, so the second casting vote of the Chair has deprived the House of the opportunity to debate all the issues that were decided in Committee by that vote.
I understand that the promoters of the Bill went so far as to plead with the Committee that there should be no amendments so as to avoid a Report stage, when the House would have the opportunity properly to scrutinise the issues on which he Committee decided. That is a misuse of parliamentary proceedings. One individual should not be able, by casting his vote in the Committee, to ensure that the House does not have an opportunity to debate amendments that would be in order had one amendment been accepted in Committee.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the way in which the casting vote was used in Committee, not only to avoid the issues being defeated in Committee, but to deprive the House of the opportunity of considering the Bill on Report, and therefore the

opportunity to question the way in which that hon. Member cast his vote. That seems a very odd procedure. I realise that a special Committee is examining procedures on private Bills, but it seems unique for an hon. Member to use a second casting vote to deprive the entire House of the opportunity to debate any of the amendments. That raises serious issues about the sovereignty of this country and Parliament over whether the import of coal should be decided in that way. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that an hon. Member cannot use a casting vote to deny the House the opportunity to debate certain issues.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have to deal with the procedures of the House as they exist, and if we need to amend them, so be it. However, I cannot deal with hypothetical situations. Extremely valuable debating time is being used up. I know that many hon. Members, most of whom are in the Chamber now, wish to speak in the Third Reading debate. I hope that Members who raise points of order will bear that in mind.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all recognise your difficulty, in that, Mr. Speaker having ruled, you cannot set aside that ruling, whatever new points have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Belper and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is quite possible that, in reaching his conclusion not to select any of the amendments, Mr. Speaker did not have in mind the argument mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bolsover."] I seldom apologise at the Dispatch Box, but in this case I really should go down on my knees and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because we all understand that the overriding requirement on anyone exercising a casting vote from the Chair is that he casts that vote in a way which enables the debate to continue and does not curtail it.
Since you are in no position to overrule Mr. Speaker's rulings, it might be helpful if you were to suspend the sitting and ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matters that have been raised and rule on whether the debate should go ahead.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Nothing has been said to make that necessary. The Bill is in very good order and the House would do well to begin the debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order from Dr. Clark, which I hope is a point of order and not a point that has developed in Committee.

Dr. Michael Clark: It most certainly is a point of order. I take great offence at the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who implied that I used a casting vote improperly in Committee. I would not have raised this point of order had you defended my use of the casting vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, but since you have not done so, it is essential that I defend myself. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, probably by mistake, said that I used two casting votes on the same issue—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope all hon. Members will understand that the debate has nothing whatsoever to do with what occurred in Committee. We


have a Third Reading debate before us this evening, and according to our Standing Orders that is the only thing that we can debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We would be wise if we now proceeded with that Third Reading debate. Mr. Hardy.

Dr. Michael Clark: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall do my best to take all points of order in turn. I have called Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have three points of order, but as one is of substantial length it might be better accommodated in my speech. As you have said, the House is eager to start this wretched debate.
My first point of order is that I went to the Vote Office a few moments ago to obtain the Hansard for 23 June last year. As you will recall, the Second Reading debate on the Bill took place on 11 May and 23 June last year. I needed to look up something in regard to the report of the second day of the Second Reading on 23 June, only to find that that Hansard is out of print. It is hardly reasonable for the House to debate the Third Reading of the Bill when the Hansard for the Second Reading is not available.
My second point of order concerns amendments on Third Reading. When I looked into the matter, I discovered that oral amendments had to be presented some days in advance and had to appear on the Order Paper. I do not challenge that ancient and historic practice. However, I understand that sometimes in certain circumstances, verbal and oral amendments can be tabled. Outside the House, there may seem to be little difference between verbal and oral amendments, but there is a difference, and as none of our oral amendments has been accepted, can any verbal amendments be presented, considered or accepted on Third Reading? I hope that you can advise the House on both my points of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No manuscript amendments can be accepted and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands my point about Mr. Speaker looking very carefully at the verbal amendments which were tabled and ruling them out. On his first point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members might have found the Hansard in the Library, but I am sure his point will be noted.

Dr. Michael Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order is very brief. When chairing that Committee, I acted within the powers that existed for the Committee to use. I took my responsibilities seriously. I greatly resent the comments made by Opposition Members and I would greatly appreciate it if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will confirm that the casting vote was properly used.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no doubt whatsoever that the Chairman of that Committee acted properly and used his casting vote in a very proper manner.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have ruled

that we should not discuss anything that took place in Committee but you are required to give us guidance before the debate proceeds, as a very unusual procedure took place. Although we have the Committee report, in its wisdom the Committee has presented a special report to Parliament. I believe that the House should know the standing of that special report to Parliament in our debate, as that report is unique. If I catch your eye later, I might make some comments on why it is unique.
Since the ruling was given that no amendments were to be considered—the House respects the fact that Mr. Speaker has given his guidance—a new light has been cast on the debate, which will proceed as a consequence of the special report. I want your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. What standing does the special report have? Without going into the merits of the special report—although we may do later on—to some extent it says to the House that we should not have been dealing with the matter in any case. That is a good reason why the amendments should have been allowed to be considered, why the debate should be suspended and why we should proceed no further.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point is a matter for debate. He may have missed hearing me say earlier that the special report produced for us by the Committee can form part of this debate.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last year, when the Housing Bill was on Report, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling. When over 170 Government amendments were tabled, including new clauses and substantial amendments to change the Bill in relation to ballots on housing action trusts, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, after considerable debate, points of order and interventions from both Front Benches, that he would accept such substantive amendments on Report, and the debate subsequently took place. That seems to run contrary to his decision on our amendments tonight, which has curtailed the ability of Back Benchers to consider primary legislation. That is an affront to the House and especially to hon. Members with constituencies that will be substantially affected by the Bill. Mr. Speaker should come back to the House and reconsider his previous ruling.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a wholly different situation. Only in the rarest of circumstances are amendments taken on Third Reading, with which we are now dealing. I hope that the House will now proceed with Third Reading.

Mr. Michael Brown: I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We have just heard a substantial discussion on the role of the Committee and the way in which decisions were taken in that Committee on the casting vote of the chairman. There is no doubt that that was a blatant political decision by the Conservative Members who served on the Committee. If the Government wanted the Bill, they should have introduced it themselves and should not have abused the private Bill procedure. When the Bill went into Committee, it was as clear as daylight what the result would be. The two key votes on the Bill were decided by the casting vote of the


Chairman. I do not know what the Chairman's position is on a private Bill. Should he intervene in this debate? I would welcome your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, in that regard.
I speak in opposition to the Bill not as an hon. Member representing a mining constituency, but as representing taxpayers and an inner-city area, which will be affected directly by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred a few moments ago to the balance of payments deficit afflicting us at present. It is worth reminding the House that the deficit is running at about £14·4 billion. The Bill will add to the deficit. We shall have imports of coal from areas to which the Labour party is politically opposed, such as South Africa and parts of south America. Polish coal will be imported and we are opposed to that as a basis for breaking the British mining industry and contributing to the balance of payments deficit.
The Bill will also directly affect the electricity supply industry. We have been told clearly that with privatisation, the electricity industry's previous commitment to take virtually the whole of its coal from British coalfields will be dropped. We know that at present, the electricity supply industry takes between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all coal produced in the United Kingdom. If that commitment is no longer there, what will be the effect on the British coal industry? What will be the effect on the areas that are supposed to be rich in coal and which have pits with a long life? I am thinking of vast areas of Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Even though we have excellent pits in my constituency in Nottinghamshire, we have almost 17 per cent. unemployment in the Worksop travel-to-work area. If the Bill is passed, that figure will double or treble. The Government have withheld permission for the West Burton power station until the Bill is passed. If the Government are to have power stations, they intend that they be run on the cheap coal about which my right hon. Friend is talking.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention because he represents an area such as I have described. There are Conservative Members who represent parts of Nottinghamshire who happen to be here at present. They were elected—for whatever wrong reasons—to represent their constituents. It cannot be denied that they represent constituents who will be directly affected by the Bill.
We are debating tonight not a narrow issue of people trying to protect jobs—valid as that is within their own community—but an issue that has a direct bearing on the economy of the United Kingdom. We are debating not a small development, but an aspect of the United Kingdom economy which will have lasting effects. I know from reports that the proposals strike at the heart of Britain's coal industry and coal-fired generating capacity. Seven major power stations lie within 50 miles of the mouth of the Humber. Those stations took almost 37 million tonnes of coal from British Coal in 1987–88. Half the entire Central Electricity Generating Board coalburn is within 100 miles of the proposed development. The Nottingham power stations of Cotham and West Burton are the most vulnerable to imports through the Humber, but at import levels of 4 million to 5 million tonnes per annum, Eggborough, Ferrybridge, High Marnham and Thorpe Marsh will also be receiving foreign coal.
What did we hear from the Government about the mining industry during the miners' strike? They said that they wanted an efficient industry and that, although the future would be painful and many pits would have to shut, the pits that were to remain open were promised that Eldorado was round the corner and that they would have a rosy future. However, now—only a short time after the Government made those pronouncements—we are seeing the very pits and the miners who were praised by the Government being thrown on the scrap heap by their policies. What sense is there in such a policy? What sense in a country that is self-sufficient in coal? What is the sense in turning our backs on an industry that we shall need in the latter part of this century and in the next?
My hon. Friends who come from the coal industry do not need me to tell them the answers because they are fully aware that once an area has had its coal production removed, and once pits have been closed, it is impossible to reopen them and that fresh proposals and fresh developments would be needed.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. Because of the problems of gas and water, the Coal Board still has to leave a significant safety margin before it can exploit any coal from exhausted pits in which all the seams have been worked, or rather from pits that deemed to have passed their useful life or which the Coal Board deem are not making sufficient profit. It is not just a question of reopening pits or of sinking new shafts in close proximity The danger is that not only has the pit been stopped, but the coal around it has, in effect, been sterilised.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend, with his background and expertise, for making clear exactly IA hat would happen in such an area.
The proposals in the Bill would most directly threaten collieries in the east midlands, Yorkshire and County Durham. They go as wide as that, as I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent those areas will acknowledge. Those areas have already paid a heavy price for British Coal's rationalisation and restructuring programme. However, such communities now face the loss of their more efficient and more productive pits, many of which have received substantial investment in recent years.

Mr. Barron: From the examples that we have seen in the past, will my right hon. Friend confirm the multiplying effect? In the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in his place, Blidworth colliery has recently closed although it still has 40 million tonnes of coal reserves. A £30 million investment programme has just been completed there under the "Plan for Coal", yet its shafts were filled in five weeks ago because British Coal said that it did not want it any more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the multiplying effect will affect many other areas if these proposed ports go ahead?

Mr. Orme: I was just about to come to a point about the collieries and the effect that the Bill will have on them. Over 25 collieries in the central and north-eastern coalfields have been identified as at risk from the Humber ports. Up to 10 pits will be displaced by 4 million to 5 million tonners, and at least 15 pits will be closed by the 10-million tonners. Even allowing for the wave of redundancies that was announced recently by British Coal,


24,000 miners' jobs are at risk. I advise those who are sponsoring the Bill that they are throwing skilled people on the scrap heap—[Interruption.] Yes, some people may laugh about it, but Opposition Members are not laughing. We are talking about communities, and I shall deal later with one community that will be affected by the changes that will flow from the proposals.
The coalfield economies are highly dependent on the coal industry and it is realistic to use a multiplier of two to assess the knock-on effects. Every colliery job that is lost will lead to one more loss in other sectors. If 15 collieries close, the total impact will be more than 30,000 job losses. That is what I am saying to those from the east and west midlands, from Lancashire and from the north-east. Indeed, that effect will stretch as far as the Welsh and Scottish coalfields. The coal industry will be weakened.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I lived through the miners' strike. I was an energy spokesman and heard the Government's arguments, which were, "We have a prosperous industry and if we concentrate on the prosperous and long-life pits and if investment is given to those areas, we will see not only a prosperous industry, but jobs, good production and good wages." However, at the heart of the current argument is the fact that people are being threatened with pit closures because of cheap coal being brought into the United Kingdom.
That importation of cheap coal will have a special impact on the coal-producing regions of Yorkshire. If new coal import facilities are provided on the Humber, their natural catchment areas will be the power stations in the Aire valley and in the lower Trent valley, which are now served largely by collieries in the Nottingham and Yorkshire coalfields.
If my hon. Friends from the Doncaster area will allow me to trespass on their constituencies, I shall deal specifically with the Bill's impact on that area. As I am sure my hon. Friends will confirm, the six collieries operating in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area all produce coal for use by local power stations. Coal from Rossington colliery is used at the Drax power station; coal from Brodsworth, Markham Main and Hatfield is used at Thorpe Marsh power station; and coal from the Askern Main and Bentley collieries is used at Eggborough power station. All the pits in the Doncaster borough area could be at risk from the importation of cheap coal. As my hon. Friends can confirm, we are talking about prosperous pits.
Reference to the Doncaster economy shows that the area already has severe economic problems which are the legacy of an association with the coal mining industry in the past century. Those problems include an unemployment rate which is nearly double the average for Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has made a valid point because the Rossington pit has produced 1 million tonnes of coal so far this year and is turning in a hell of a profit. I wonder whether those who are sponsoring the Bill understand the poverty and despair of a pit village once the centre of its life has disappeared. Is their concept of poverty the same as that of the Secretary of State for Social Security? I cannot tell the House what constituency he represents. I do not think that he lives in a constituency in

this country, as he has not yet met poverty. The sponsors of the Bill cannot have met poverty, or they would not have sponsored it.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am referring to an area with which he is familiar to show the effects upon one area. We can talk globally, but sometimes it is difficult to grasp the full effect. The closure of any of the remaining collieries in the Doncaster borough will have a dramatic effect on the local community and will exacerbate an already serious problem.
The Askern community is an example of an area that is dependent on one traditional industry and the problems that will arise if a colliery is closed down. Other mining communities are in a similar position. Askern is within the Doncaster area. The Doncaster metropolitan borough council wishes to make known the likely severe economic and social consequences that will arise if the Bill is passed, and it has petitioned hon. Members to that effect.
The Doncaster metropolitan borough forms part of South Yorkshire. It has a population of 290,000 and an area of 225 square miles. The coal mining industry in that area includes the Bentley, Askern, Thorne, Armthorpe, Rossington and Mexborough collieries. Most of the area's economic problems stem from its narrow economic base. Its economic base is narrow because it was built on coal, and it still needs coal and depends on it. One cannot say that the collieries are not producing efficiently or have no life. In other parts of the world they would be regarded as prosperous. They are being sacrificed so that cheap coal can be imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Skinner: Cheap for how long?

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend asks a good question.

Mr. Skinner: A good analogy is the 1960s, when we were told that there was a lot of cheap oil. People said, "We will replace the dear coal in Britain. We want to get miners out of the pits. We will shut the pits, as we have all that cheap oil in the middle east." After about 10 or 15 years, there was a change in the middle east, the price of oil quadrupled and miners were suddenly wanted again. All the talk about cheap imports should be regarded against that background. As soon as other countries get a grip on the energy industry in this country, they will do what was done with the oil industry.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When such people break the power of British industry, they will be in a position to extract from Britain what they want at the time, especially if we are dependent on coal imports. Would any other major industrialised nation, with the oil, gas and coal resources that we have, turn its back on its wealth and say, "We will leave it in the ground"?
I have been endeavouring to illustrate the economic problems that face small areas such as Askern. It is worth noting that, in many areas, the mining industry employs a high proportion of the local work force. Although efforts have been made to broaden their industrial bases, the economic prosperity of such areas is still substantially tied to developments in the coal mining industry. In 1984, the latest year for which figures are available, the industry employed 16 per cent. of the work force in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area, compared with 1·1 per cent. throughout Great Britain.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Askern is a special case. It will be bumped if the Bill is passed. It is a special case for me also because I lived at Askern, and my father was killed in a pit there in 1935. Askern means a lot to me. Also, 73 per cent. of its male population works at Askern pit. There just ain't any more work. In the summer of 1987, 190-odd kiddies left school, and only 44 got jobs. Those people live in a beautiful area and they should be looked after. Any hon. Member who would introduce a Bill to close that quarry has no compassion. If hon. Members have no compassion, they should not sit in this Chamber and talk about politics.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the knowledge that he brings to the House. I regret the tragedies that he has seen in that area. I referred to Askern as an example of what happens to a community when a major industry closes down.
I live in and represent the Salford constituency in the Greater Manchester area in the north-west of England. We in that area have seen coal, steel and engineering virtually disappear. As I said only the other night in a debate on the manufacturing industry, our community was a major engineering area. It was almost within throwing distance of the start of the industrial revolution. Having seen those industries disappear, we have seen rising unemployment, despite the alleged improvement in unemployment figures. There is still large-scale male unemployment—never mind female unemployment—in inner-city wards in my constituency. If we proceed with the Bill tonight and it reaches the statute book, the effects which have been felt in Doncaster will be felt in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

Mr. McCartney: My right hon. Friend has referred to colliery closures in Lancashire. The last colliery in my constituency since the miners' strike is now to be closed.
In addition, the support industries and mining technology industries, including the long-wall mining technology industry in my constituency—which includes Gullick Dobson—have suffered hundreds of redundancies because the deep-mining industry in Britain has been run down. We risk losing that industry completely. At the moment there is an expansion in the world coal industry of which we cannot take advantage because this Government's policies have disrupted the home market.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is aware that imported cheap coal will have the same effect in Lancashire as it will have in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere.

Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend is talking about areas being run down. He should consider the Barnsley coalfield which used to be one of the most prosperous in the country. I had 13 collieries in my constituency; I now have none. We must also consider the fact that we brought men down from Scotland and Durham to work in our collieries. The collieries which are now in danger, including Darfield, Houghton, Grimethorpe and Denby Grange are the only collieries left in the Barnsley coalfield in which hundreds of immigrant miners from other areas made their lives and married the girls. We have an obligation to them. Will my right hon. Friend consider the miners who might be made redundant?

Mr. Orme: I acknowledge the wealth of experience which my hon. Friend brings to this debate. He is absolutely correct: what he describes will happen if cheap coal is imported.
I am advised that many of my colleagues want to take part in the debate, and I will therefore be brief.

Mr. Ashton: My right hon. Friend is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. The Labour party is undergoing a review of its policies on which we will light the next general election. I hope that the people listening and the sponsors of the Bill will understand the consequences. I hope that we will send a message loud and clear that when the Labour party wins the next general election, these ports will not see the light of day. They are wasting their time laying down the foundations and spending money even if the Bill receives its Third Reading.

Mr. Orme: There is no doubt about where the Labour party stands on this issue. We are completely opposed to the Bill. We will not see these proposals implemented.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this point for me? If the ports have been constructed and are operating when the next general election is held, will a future incoming Labour Government shut them down?

Mr. Orme: We would not allow the cheap importation of coal through those ports. That is a categorical pledge to the House.
I could have quoted more instances of local areas which would be affected by the Bill. Hon. Members are aware that the Bill will not help British industry. It will be against the interests of the coal mining industry and of the economy as a whole. We should not proceed with the Bill, and I hope that the House will take that decision this evening.

Dr. Michael Clark: I want to begin by referring to a comment made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who asked whether it was usual for Committee Members to speak in a Third Reading debate. I inquired into that and was advised that as a general rule Committee Members did not speak in Third Reading debates. I discovered that it was a general convention, not a rule, that all Committee Members decided jointly that they would abstain from speaking in debates following Committee meetings. We agreed in Committee that we would not speak during the carry-over motion for this Bill, but when we discussed what should happen on Third Reading Labour members of the Committee decided that they wanted to speak because they were, rightly, the most informed people in the House with regard to the Bill.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and his colleagues will confirm that they wanted to speak. As the convention was not a strict convention, but could be modified according to the wishes of the Committee, we agreed that we would, if called, put our points of view on Third Reading. At the request of Labour members of the Committee, we agreed that each of us would speak if called.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so kind and considerate to the Labour members of


the Committee, but why was he so tolerant on that occasion? Why did he not use his casting vote to rule that they could not speak?

Dr. Clark: I want to consider another point made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East with regard to influence that might have been brought to bear on to Members on the Committee, particularly Conservative Members.

Mr. Eadie: Since the hon. Gentleman has decided to take part in the debate, he must take part in what I would call the rough and tumble of debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked him a fair question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour members of the Committee were the best informed about the Bill. If he concedes that they are the best informed, why did he vote against them in Committee?

Dr. Clark: I said that the Labour Members said that Committee members were the most informed Members of the House in respect of this Bill. It would be wrong to deny the most informed Members of the House the opportunity to speak and to present their views.
I will present my views very briefly and I imagine that the hon. Member for Bradford, North will try to present his views. It would be wrong for the hon. Member for Bradford, North to keep quiet when he has heard 26 days of evidence on the Bill. He must wish to present some of his views and findings to the House. I conceded that he had a good point and we agreed jointly that we would speak. I believe that I have answered the point.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has decided to speak tonight. The House will be aware that on an earlier occasion and again tonight, often from sedentary positions, my hon. Friend's honour has been called into question. There have been comments that he has an interest. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members know my hon. Friend to be honourable. In his best interests, perhaps he should try to show in his speech before he considers the Bill just what is this rather strange and tenuous interest of which he has been accused.

Dr. Clark: I will gladly answer my hon. Friend's point. I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech because I did not believe that I had one, but I will elaborate on the point.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is the only Member who took a Government Bill through a Committee but did not get a ministerial salary.

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) listens, he will discover that I do not have much of an interest to declare. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill were taken at the same time. An hon. Member said that I had an interest which I should declare because one of the two joint sponsors of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was a subsidiary of a company called Simon Engineering. Another subsidiary of Simon Engineering was a member of a trade association to which I am parliamentary adviser. It so happens that we are not today discussing the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill but the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I have no

connection, however tenuous or contrived, with any interests in that Bill. It might also interest hon. Members to know that I voted against the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill going through unamended, so I do not know how they can accuse me of having a biased interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking about my interest in this matter.
I declare two other interests. I declare an interest in that I was born, brought up and went to school in Nottinghamshire, and I went to school with many coal miners' sons. Some of my own family worked in the pits in Manton and Bevercotes, so I declare an interest in the coal mining industry and in making sure that it thrives in my home county. I also declare an interest in Lincolnshire, where other members of my family live. My grandfather came from there and all my cousins live there. I therefore declare an interest in wanting Lincolnshire to be prosperous, and the Bill will help to achieve that.

Mr. Hardy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect at least. As Chairman of the Committee, it may be unusual for him to speak, but it may be appropriate in this debate, as he will recall that his Committee struck a serious note about the consequences for the British mining industry of the imports that we are debating in the special report provided by the Committee. I expected the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes, (Mr. Brown) to comment in his speech on the serious note that that Committee struck, but all we had was sniggering, brief, arrogant introduction, without a word of justification and without a word of observation on that serious report. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has this chance to comment on that report in view of the negligence or hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who failed to do so.

Dr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My speech, which I hope will be short, revolves around that precise point—the importance of the special report.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East said that this was a political Bill, probably sponsored or influenced by the Government or the Conservative party. I wish to state categorically that before sitting on the Committee I had no contact with my party Whips. No approach was made to me during that Committee, which sat from October to February, and there has been no contact since. [Interruption.] I say in all seriousness and on my honour that there was no approach by my party Whips before, during or after the sittings of the Committee. Lest there be any confusion, I also state that there was no approach by Ministers or any office of the Conservative party or the Government before, during or after the Committee sittings.
It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that when a promoter, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), is anxious to get his Bill through the House, it is usual for him to circulate his hon. Friends to see whether they will support the Bill on Third Reading. Whether or not my hon. Friend has done that—I suspect that he has—I have had no request from him to vote for the Bill today and I suspect that he has not sent any such request to other members of the Committee.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman tells us about his family background and talks about his honour, but there is a general view among


Opposition Members that the hon. Gentleman protests too much. The hon. Gentleman's party is determined to get the Bill through and its promoter makes a habit of going to South Africa and, disgracefully, does not speak properly.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), despite all his piousness, tells us that he had something to do with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which my hon. Friends—many of whom have long experience—feel should have led him to say that he would not chair the Committee due to his deep interest in the Bill. I am at a loss to understand how an hon. Member so deeply embedded in a cause could have chaired the Committee. Two Bills have been divided and there is something sick and wrong going on here tonight. Many of us believe that it should be looked into before the Bill proceeds any further.

Dr. Clark: I thought that it would be a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that I had an interest in the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. I explained the accusations that were made against me. I did not declare an interest.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is brief.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should really come clean and explain to the House that he is a paid parliamentary adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, a subsidiary of which in Hull is one of the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had any decency he would not be taking any part in the proceedings on the Bill.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and what he has left out, I believe that proceedings should be brought to a halt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the House will not impugn the motives of members of the Committee who sat for many hours and produced a special report which is before the House. The House would be well advised to discuss the merits of the Bill and the special report which came from the Committee.

Dr. Clark: I must respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Once again he is totally wrong.

Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong.

Mr. Skinner: It is in the Register of Members' Interests, but that does not say how much money the hon. Gentleman gets.

Dr. Clark: The Bill is promoted by Associated British Ports which, so far as I know, has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering.

Mr. Skinner: Simon Carves.

Dr. Clark: It has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering or Simon Carves. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is getting it all backwards and has not the integrity to try to speak the truth when accusing other hon. Members of impropriety.
It was generally agreed in Committee that, had it not been for the coal issue, the Bill, promoted by Associated British Ports, would probably have gone through Committee and the House largely unopposed. Associated British Ports wanted facilities to import iron ore, other chemicals and raw materials necessary for industry in Lincolnshire and the north of England, and to export steel, cereals and finished products.
It was also clearly stated that Associated British Ports needed a larger facility on the Humber if it was to compete with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. If it did riot have larger facilities it was feared that our port industry would decline even further than it has done so far. The Committee was sympathetic to extending Britain's ports to make sure that we were not dependent on continental ports and break cargoes from the continent to Britain. It is therefore fair to say that had it not been for the coal issue there would have been little opposition in Committee and perhaps in the House.
British Coal was one of the petitioners against the Bill. There were many others—local authorities, the National Union of Mineworkers arid the National Union of Railwaymen, but all of those wanted to reject the Bill in total. British Coal wished to make an amendment to the effect that no coal should be brought in through the port until 1996, by which time British Coal would have managed to increase its productivity still further, reduced its production costs and generally got its cost of coal down closer to the price of cheap coal on the world market. British Coal said, in effect, "Give us six or seven years, through an amendment to the Bill, and at the end of that time we shall no longer need to be protected because we shall have made fantastic strides in bringing down the price of British coal." British Coal therefore said, "Protect us for those years and we will be content—we shall require no protection after 1996."
The question then arose of how much coal was likely to come in through the dock if it were constructed, and the promoter said 2·5 million tonnes. The Committee in general—Labour Members in particular but Conservative Members, too—thought that that perhaps was a modest amount—[Interruption.] The NUM said that it would be 7 million tonnes, but some said that even that was on the low side and that it could be more. In Committee we did a quick calculation which showed that with a change of cranes and dockside procedures, it was possible that as much as 10 million or even 12 million tonnes could come in. That gave us cause for concern.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Is it not a fact that the figure quoted by the NUM was in respect of total capacity, with the port at full production?

Dr. Clark: Yes, the NUM's figure of 7 million tonnes was in respect of full production, but some of us felt that the NUM had understated the position. We thought that, in fairness, it could be more than the NUM figure. We feared that it could be as much as 10 million tonnes. We on the Committee tried to do our job diligently, considering what the figure could be and examining the consequences.
Many Opposition Members are from coal mining constituencies. In Committee, we totally sympathised with the effects that could come from the massive importation of coal through the facilities of the port, first if it were to be built and secondly if it were to be used for importing


coal in massive quantities. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, as many as 15 pits could be shut if the dock facility were used exclusively for bringing in cheap Colombian, Polish, South African and Australian coal. Those 15 pits, with an average of 1,000 miners per pit, would mean the loss of 15,000 jobs, with a knock-on effect for the local coalfield communities. We appreciate, too —as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, who is no longer in his place—that that energy would be sterilised for ever and would not be available at a future time when coal prices on the world market might be more expensive and we would wish to use indigenous coal.

Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the Committee's concern about the import of large quantities of coal. He said that all the figures given to the Committee were under-estimates of the tonnages that the Committee considered might be brought in through the port. In view of that, and in view of the consequences of the closure of 15 pits, why did he not support the amendment that British Coal wished to make to the Bill?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question. We thought that the special report and the conditions that we placed on ABP covered the point better than the British Coal amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee asked in the recommendations for certain assurances from the Government. So far as I know, no such assurances have been given. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill should proceed any further?

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to proceed with my speech a little further, I shall deal with that point. I promise not to ignore his question.
Before the voting, the Committee discussed what would be the consequences of building the dock facility if it were used entirely for coal, and we did not like the consequences that were revealed. But we also had to consider what would be the consequences for trade in general in the north Midlands, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire if there were not more port facilities to allow general cargo trade on the Humber. We came to the conclusion—although it was contested in the vote, and that was when I used my casting vote—that we wanted to ensure that facilities were built so that they could be used for general trade. We also wanted to be sure that there was not a flood of cheap imported foreign coal, with all the horrendous consequences about which we had heard from the petitioners.
It seemed to us far more appropriate to build something so that it could be used for general trade, but to bring to the attention of the Government—here I answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—the danger of the port facility being used exclusively, largely or damagingly for coal, and asking the Government to be aware of the danger. So that the Government would know the size of the danger, we put a condition on ABP—which it later granted us—to report quarterly the amount of coal brought in so that the figures could be in the Library for hon. Members, and be available to the Department of

Energy. By that means, hon. Members interested in coal, as well as the Department, would be aware of what was happening on the Humber.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. The report says at paragraph 24:
The conditions imposed by the Committee are as follows. They were agreed to unanimously.
In bold print at the bottom of the page we read:
In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry.
Has the hon. Gentleman received an assurance from the Government that the conditions imposed by his Committee will be fulfilled by the Government? If not, does he believe that the Bill should proceed any further?

Dr. Clark: I have not received any assurances from the Government on that point. [Interruption.] I have tried to play this straight. I have not spoken to Ministers on the matter, and I do not intend to do so until after the Third Reading.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Clark: I cannot give way to everyone at once.
As for conditions, the two referred to in paragraph 24 are conditions of the special report and of ABP reporting on coal imports. They are not conditions on Government, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have included in heavy type the sentence that he quoted.

Mr. Allen McKay: The argument seems to centre on the Committee's findings and the details for which it asked. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there could be a loss of 30,000 or 40,000 jobs and that great damage could be done to Britain's economy. The Minister will shortly reply to the debate. If the Minister does not give the assurances about which we have heard—remembering that we are on Third Reading and that this is our last chance to debate the matter—will the hon. Gentleman join us voting against the Bill and advise his hon. Friends to do the same?

Dr. Clark: I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will refer to our special report and will consider the reason behind it, which is to support the domestic coal mining industry. I shall be disappointed if my hon. Friend does not say that the Government will take note of the special report's contents. At this stage, I shall not go so far as to reveal my voting intentions, but I shall share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment if my hon. Friend the Minister does not refer to the report.

Mr. McCartney: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why he acted as he did, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, on the issue of guarantees. Does he agree that the guarantee given by Hitler to Neville Chamberlain had more substance than the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman has been given about miners' jobs?

Dr. Clark: The difference is that at the moment umbrellas are being used to keep the sun away, not the rain. In this case, we seek understandings with our own Government about our own people. We are not debating a guarantee by a foreign Government to protect our nation, so the hon. Gentleman's analogy is not worth pursuing.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have just stumbled on this debate, but clearly I should have been here earlier. Those of my constituents who produce oil, mutton and


wool ought to have been represented on my hon. Friend's Committee to secure a guarantee that those products would not be imported. It seems amazing that we should be seeking to limit coal imports by restricting their passage through a particular port.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we try to restrict imports by failing to provide dock facilities, we shall destroy all free trade in and out of this country just to protect one commodity. Even though my hon. Friend has been in the Chamber only briefly, he hits the nail on the head. We must provide adequate facilities for imports and exports, but if a part of our economy comes under serious attack or is in danger as a consequence of excessive imports, the Government of the day—whatever their political complexion—must take whatever action is necessary to protect the home industry from dumping. But to fail to construct port facilities in the first place is no way to control imports.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that was asked earlier? Why did he not support the amendment that would restrict only imports of steam coal? He could then have got on with promoting general trade, which we also want to do.

Dr. Clark: I did not support that amendment because I felt that the special report was a better way of achieving the desired effect. I have described that report in some detail and I have given way to several interventions. The debate—

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be having great difficulty in answering a direct question. Will you use your good offices to get the Minister off his backside to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be better if the House got on with the debate.

Dr. Clark: The House must not assume that if and when the port is built it will be used exclusively, or even mainly, for coal imports. It will provide jobs and business opportunities in the Humber area, and will have its own knock-on effects in Humberside, north Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. We should not forget that the Bill covers also King's Lynn and Port Talbot, but that aspect is not contentious.
The special report, which was the Committee's idea, and the quarterly reports sought from ABP are intended to alert the Government to the dangers of importing massive amounts of cheap foreign coal and to give them an opportunity to take whatever action is necessary to protect both national and local interests. I am surprised that the special report has been criticised to the extent that it has because it was prepared only to protect and assist the domestic coal industry. Some Opposition Members could be a little more sympathetic to a report that is intended precisely and specifically to draw to the Government's attention the dangers that might arise in many of the constituencies served by Opposition Members. I suggest that the House should think carefully about the Bill. As to the port facility, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. Terry Patchett: It is becoming apparent that there is more to the Bill than meets the eye. At first glance it seems harmless, having the purpose only of providing competition with European ports and creating direct access to the United Kingdom rather than through Rotterdam or Amsterdam. The Bill would also provide jobs on the east coast that are badly needed. All that seems reasonable, until one starts delving further. From the debate so far, it is obvious that there is a sinister move afoot and that the Bill goes much deeper than merely creating a port facility that may handle a small volume of coal imports.
Why have some Conservative Members who support the Bill been to South Africa? Who paid their expenses, and why did they visit South African coal mines?

Mr. Hardy: I take this opportunity to withdraw an implication that I made in a recent debate when I suggested that Associated British Ports was responsible for sending Conservative Members to South Africa. I informed ABP that I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of that kind. However, having done so, I may say that the House is entitled to ask Conservative Members who went to South Africa, who paid their expenses, because none of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that they provide that money from their own resources.

Mr. Patchett: My hon. Friend takes an honourable course of action in withdrawing his earlier comment, and I hope that his request for information will be honoured by Conservative Members. I am happy to give way if any Conservative Member wishes to respond, but I see no movement on the Government Benches.
I would like to know also why the Government have so much enthusiasm for the Bill. Why have there been unofficial whippings? If one is unaware of the answers, one has only to read the special report to find them. It states in paragraph 21:
The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting United Kingdom energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench MPs, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private Bill committee. There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government.
I pay tribute to the Committee for its honest assessment of the position. That is what has been said time and again in the House about the same old gambit. The Government are presenting part of their energy policy in the guise of a private Bill: we need only observe the payroll vote and, indeed, the Prime Minister herself, going through the Lobby to support it to see that that is so.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: "Payroll vote" is a term that I love to hate, because parliamentary private secretaries are not


paid, but does the hon. Gentleman concede that four PPSs voted against the Bill on Second Reading? If so, I trust that he will withdraw what he has said.

Mr. Patchett: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather confusing, as I did not think that I had used an unusual term. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will correct me if I have stepped out of line, but I thought that it was a term used quite commonly in the House.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is.

Mr. Patchett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the vast majority of the payroll vote have been through the Lobby to support the Bill. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has picked on that point. If this is education so be it, but it seems to me that those who are supposed to live by the rule of free market forces are encouraging the import of cheap foreign coal because it will spur on people interested in buying our electricity industry.
The Bill's supporters show a callous indifference to both the evil of apartheid and the future of our own coal industry. I have said that jobs will be created at the ports; I believe, however, that for every hundred created a thousand will be lost in the rest of the country—in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is running at 20 per cent. and is even higher among the young.
The Coal Board is in a dilemma, and I understand the confusion caused by the Government's lack of a coherent energy policy. Despite our high unemployment, according to the Coal Board review a colliery in my area is likely to lose nearly 800 jobs. So dishonest is the board, and so lacking in confidence in its own arguments, that it has used deceitful tactics and threatened workers with the loss of some of their redundancy money—a rather dubious threat, we suspect.
That Barnburgh colliery was supposed to have obtained 2·5 million tonnes of coal from another colliery that had closed—for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I am referring to Cadeby. The confusion resulted from the fact that the Coal Board does not know where it is going.
Those who voted for the Bill—the greedy ones, the "I'm all right Jacks"—are doing long-term harm to the country. While they profit, the Government pay out more and more unemployment benefit, lose income through not receiving tax and face the ever-growing problem of its balance of payments. When they have decimated our own coal industry we will run the risk of a rise in world coal prices when cheap foreign coal has served its purpose.
Already a section of our electricity generating industry panics if a tanker goes aground or an oil well goes out of commission, and world oil prices start to rocket. That is the stupidity of the Government's energy policy. The debate is about energy. This is much more serious than what will happen to one or two ports. The Government have been responsible for a disgraceful misuse of Private Bill procedure. The payroll vote, along with the proximity of the ports to coal-fired power stations which the Government intend to privatise, proves that the Bill is an expression of Government policy and should have been dealt with in Government time.
I ask all hon. Members who respect the House to vote to keep the Bill out, on that basis alone, and to let the Government put the subject forward for more open and honest debate, with all hon. Members understanding their true purpose. If we allow the Bill to be passed, we shall damage parliamentary procedures and make a laughing stock of Mr. Speaker's office. Even if some hon. Members are in favour of the Bill, I ask them not to favour deceit.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The infamous Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, if enacted, would strike at the very heart of Britain's coal industry. When it received its Second Reading 11 months ago with a majority of 47—110 were for and 63 against—there were serious recriminations. Who was responsible for allowing this to happen? Was it the fair weather synthetic supporters of the coal industry who had skived off home early at 7.20 pm, or the many uninformed hon. Members who happened to be still around at 8.20 pm when the Division was called, and who drifted into the wrong Lobby? I cannot speak for the former category; they will have to live with their consciences.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: Not now.
Let me direct my efforts tonight towards persuading my hon. Friends who, when the coal industry was equally threatened in 1984–85, packed the Conservative Benches in support of the Nottinghamshire miners and their families, to do the same tonight.
The Nottinghamshire coalfield is particularly threatened by proposals to build coal handling cargo facilities on the Humber estuary which will be capable of handling 10 million tonnes of imported coal. An increase in the amount of artificially cheap coal imported to the British market will imperil a significant amount of investment already made by British Coal, leading to further colliery closures. Up to 80 per cent. of Nottinghamshire's deep-mined coal is burned in power stations in the Trent valley. The loss of that market, even in the short term, will lead to the closures of several pits in the county.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the threat to jobs in his constituency and others. Will he make it clear to the Nottinghamshire miners that it is his own party that is to bring about those job losses by voting for the Bill?

Mr. Stewart: I am not the conscience of my brothers.
It is estimated that up to 11 collieries in Nottinghamshire could be at risk, directly or indirectly, as a result of large-scale coal imports. Today the coal industry makes a major contribution to Nottinghamshire's economy. As well as being the largest industrial employer, paying wages in excess of £300 million in 1988, the industry and its employees generate further employment as consumers of services and manufactured goods. Putting it another way, for every job in the mining industry it supports up to two jobs in other sectors.
Although regarded as one of the most prosperous in the country, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has lost more than 13,000 jobs since 1984 in a drive towards greater productivity and competitiveness. Having completed this painful exercise in human terms and the latest financial


figures showing an operating profit of £65 million, it would be unthinkable to put at risk a further 11,000 jobs, as would happen if this ports Bill were approved.
Approaching half of British Coal sales to power stations are within about 60 miles of the Humber ports and the central coal fields send over 80 per cent. of their output to power stations with the lowest transport costs from the Humber—West Burton, Cottam, Thorpe Marsh and High Marnham. Last year these stations took over 60 million tonnes of British coal and over 11 million tonnes from Nottinghamshire. This represents 45 per cent. of the total supplied to those stations. Moreover, 40 per cent. of the total sales of the Nottinghamshire area went to those four stations, which clearly shows that the dependence of Nottinghamshire on this market can hardly be exaggerated.
The Union of Democratic Mineworkers, in its submission to the Committee, emphasised that its opposition to the proposed facilities in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill does not arise from a wish to prevent legitimate competition; it arises from a desire to allow the industry's present policy of restructuring to be brought to a successful conclusion without short-term disruption of the markets by imports sold at prices unlikely to he sustainable in the medium and long term. Failure by my hon. Friends to recognise this would prejudice economic fuel supplies to the privatised electricity industry in the longer term.
By comparison the United Kingdom enjoys lower domestic and industrial tariffs for its electricity supply than our major competitors. In fact, at 3·8p per kilowatt they are 50 per cent. lower than those of Japan, Germany and the United States. Our price is in keeping with the prices of the major coal-exporting countries, such as Australia and Poland. How can the international coal producers capture a market share in the United Kingdom other than by loss leader prices, which raises a fundamental question—do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners?

Mr. Barron: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to us, since we are a hit puzzled about his defence of the coal mining industry, why he did not join us in the Lobby against the Electricity Bill which privatises the electricity industry and will kill the Nottinghamshire coalfield along with others?

Mr. Stewart: We are talking tonight about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill; we are not talking about the privatisation of the electricity industry.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before my hon. Friend addresses himself to that point, will he address himself to why, when this Bill was being read a Second time, the Opposition attendance was so dismal? Far from complaining today, if they had attended on that occasion instead of sloping off home, the Bill would never have proceeded to a Third Reading. He should accept no strictures from the Opposition when his position on this matter has always been consistent.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am not giving way. There are many people wishing to speak.
I accept what my hon. Friend has said and agree with him entirely.

Mr. Redmond: Give way.

Mr. Stewart: I am not giving way any more.
Do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners or do we support British coal and our miners, who have served the electricity industry and the customer well? Over the past four years they have reduced their prices to the CEGB in real terms by £650 million a year. In the current year there has been no price increase at all despite the high rate of inflation. Should all this be squandered for the illusory benefits of foreign coal?
Compared with a year ago, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was introduced, there are clear signs that overseas coal producers are determined to increase their prices to ensure the future viability of their operations. Low heavy fuel oil prices, which had a significant bearing on the coal price freeze agreed with the CEGB last November, have sinced moved upwards by over 50 per cent. Also, sterling has shown a downward trend against the dollar, in which international coal is traded, despite heavy Government intervention which amounts to a further £7 a tonne on imported coal. This shows beyond any doubt why the new power generating companies cannot rely on spot or short-term international coal contracts.
The ESI must give both domestic and industrial users some price guarantee indication and can do so only if raw materials are predictable at cost. Only British coal can offer this. Its unique selling point, which cannot be paralleled by any importer, is that it can offer long-term contracts, up to 10 years if need be, with prices based on the retail price index for secured, established coal supplies. It now has a proven record of quality of supply and performance, backed by the example set by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers offering real stability of supply.
In their evidence to the Committee the port developers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that they are not basing their project on handling any significant tonnage of coal. Frankly, I do not believe them. However, that is what they have said. If that is the case and this Bill receives a Third Reading, they cannot claim that the project will be imperilled if a new clause is moved in another place excluding them from handling coal for the first three years or so after the port has been completed in 1992. This will eliminate the severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports.
My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already—

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you give us some guidance? Do you think it right that the hon. Member who gave the casting vote to put this Bill through to the Third Reading should be discussing with the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not privy to what goes on outside this Chamber.

Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman, having made several statements, now tell the House that he is willing to discuss the Third Reading with the people who are seeking to promote this Bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate. As I say, what happens outside the Chamber is not a matter for me. I have a big enough job controlling what happens in the Chamber.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already sells the equivalent of 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at prices—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is supposed to be the impartial Chairman of the Committee. Is it right for him to be consistently holding discussions with the sponsors of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite customary for Ministers and others to seek advice outside the Chamber, but I am sure that all hon. Members will respond at all times to the mood of the House.

Mr. Stewart: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I get the impression that this matter is resolving itself.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) became Chairman of the Committee, the House was given a categorical assurance by him that he had no connection whatsoever with the sponsors. We accepted that assurance from him as an hon. Gentleman. Only minutes later, however, we found that that was not the case. There should be a ruling about his conduct. He has broken the categorical assurance that he gave to us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that we can get on with it.

Mr. Stewart: British Coal already sells 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at world prices, so no further price advantage would accrue until the 26 million tonnes of imported coal arrive. While seeking that advantage, the cost in pit closures, job losses and destroyed coalfield communities would be tenfold. For me, the risks to my constituents, 30 per cent. of whom work directly for the coal industry, are too great. Therefore I beg my hon. Friends to listen to the argument and to stand full square behind Nottingham miners and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. John Prescott: I ought to register, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the House, the fact that we do not have even the Chairman of the Committee—

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yet again we are debating the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It has been debated on many previous occasions. About 25 minutes of the debate have been taken up by hon. Members who represent coalfield community areas. That is all the time that they have had to participate in the debate. The Chairman of the Committee that considered the Bill spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain how much effort he had put into considering the Bill over many weeks. Hon. Members with constituencies in the north-west have spoken in the debate. There are no coal mines in their area. An hon. Member with a Humberside constituency is

promoting the Bill. Now the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is called. Is this debate to be concluded at 10 o'clock? If that is so, hon. Members from coal mining areas will not have had an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I well understand that the hon. Gentleman, and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that, when spokesmen from the Front Benches rise, it is customary for them to be called. That is why I called the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mr. Prescott: As the Chairman of the Committee has sought advice or instructions from the sponsors of the Bill, I think that at least he should have listened to what hon. Members have had to say in the debate, particularly as he has played such an important role in having the casting vote. We have heard that his casting vote was used to decide all the matters that were in front of the Committee. However, you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not in breach of the procedures of the House.
One appreciates that the sponsor of the Bill—in this case the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—would naturally seek advice from the sponsors, but it is a bit much for that role to be taken on by the Chairman of the Committee, whose own independence has been constantly questioned by the Opposition. I can only hope that he will return to the Chamber after discussing with the promoters of the Bill the information that he wants to impart to the House. We should welcome the Chairman back to the Chamber.
The real issue, however, is not what the Chairman of the Committee may have to tell us. The real issue is the Government's view of the matter. That is what we have asked for in every debate on the Bill at each stage. Now we are at Third Reading. Certain recommendations have been made by the Committee. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has made it absolutely clear that there is no argument between the NUM and the UDM, or between him and Opposition Members, as will be shown in the Division Lobby. I do not know what has motivated him to embark upon such a course. However, the point that concerns me is why the Government do not note that all those hon. Members who represent mining constituencies are expressing the same grave fears and doubts about the consequences of the Bill.
If anyone doubts that, one can point to the fact that the Committee published a special report because it was extremely concerned about the consequences of the Bill. Cheap coal and the consequences for the coal industry of privatisation are significant matters that lie at the heart of the debate. They are matters of national interest and concern. Those who ought to speak for the national interest are the Government.
I have read the reports of the debates that have taken place at the various stages of the Bill, including the Government's position at each stage. I draw that to the attention of the House, bearing in mind that the Committee's report calls on the Government to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect our indigenous coal mining industry. Perhaps the industry and the Government are doing that, but they have not yet convinced me.
I should be glad if the Minister for Roads and Traffic would say whether he intends to give the Government's point of view. I look with interest at the man who is never afraid to get up to lecture us about all sorts of things. Is it the Minister's intention to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate, in view of the Committee's special report? I will gladly give way to him—The Minister obviously does not intend to get up. He has obviously got his seat belt on for this ride.
I remind the Minister what other Ministers have said at various stages. I presume that he has read the report of the debates. Obviously he is the fall guy; he has been sent here to say nothing in this debate.
The Minister of State at that time told the House:
It is conventional on a private Bill for the Government to take a neutral stance, but in doing so to advise the House that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. This does not imply that the Government support the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified."—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 122.]
That is the view of various Governments on all private Bills.
The Government were also asked to state their position when the House was considering whether the Bill could be transferred from one Session to another—a procedure that is now all too common. The Minister of State said:
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the Government's views on the carry-over motion. The Government believe that the motion should be supported. That will provide the opportunity for this important Bill to continue to be discussed."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 257.]
That was the extent of the Minister's contribution.
The Bill has been in Committee and we have before us certain recommendations, on which we are entitled to ask for the Government's view. If one is led to believe that the Government were indifferent and did not want to be identified with the Bill, a quick look at the voting record will soon make it clear that not only did ordinary Government Back Benchers vote, but Cabinet Ministers were involved, with 26 members of the Cabinet voting. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is known to operate in the Government's interest, is hardly the sort of fellow who is likely to vote against the Government's interest. He spends all his time defending it.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is making great play about which Members on the Government side voted for or against the Second Reading of these Bills. I have only the Hansard of Thursday 23 June. Among the Members voting against the Bill were 11 or 12 Conservatives, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman's name in either Division list on that day. In view of the synthetic indignation that he is generating now, I wonder if he voted against the Second Reading of any of the Bills.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman said that he had not read the whole record. If he looks at the record, he will find that I voted on them all, with the exception of that one. I can give the reasons why I did not vote on that occasion, if the hon. Gentleman wants them, but I do not think we need go into them.
The real point is, what is the position of the Government? We are talking about the Secretary of State for Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Security. One could argue that each of those

Departments, apart from the Northern Ireland Office, will be directly affected by the consequences of the Bill. The Department of Social Security will be affected by the payment of benefit to those who become unemployed because of the Bill, and the Treasury may be concerned with the balance of payments deficit. Perhaps those Ministers took the view that all they were doing was enabling the debate to take place; perhaps they just happened to be about that evening and voted for the Bill. We will accept that argument, if that is the case.
What will be the position tonight? What is the Government's position on the Bill, since the Committee was unanimous in its recommendations? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) whether he had received any assurances from the Government. He was at pains to make it clear that he had had no discussions with the Government. I am glad that he was not asked about discussions with Associated British Ports. If we leave that aside, the Government have not approached him.
I want to ask only one question, because many hon. Members still want to speak. What is the Government's position on an energy policy, a coal policy, jobs and employment, the balance of payments and social security benefits? All those matters are directly involved. Is the Minister prepared to get up and tell us what the Government's position is? Has he been briefed on the Government's position, or will he be voting tonight on a Bill on which he does not have a view? Has he been told to vote in a certain way? Is that the kind of order that Ministers get from on high?
I shall give the Minister another chance. Will he now get up and give us an indication of the Government's view on the matter—or, more so, on the recommendations of the Select Committee? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.—He does not wish to intervene. It is clear that the Government—

Mr. Graham Allen: Clearly the Minister does not intend to get to his feet because it is all part of a big fix. It is the height of hypocrisy. Some Nottingham Tory Members will vote with Labour tonight against the Bill, yet next week they will vote against the Nottinghamshire mining industry by voting for privatisation, by supporting a cut in the CEGB coal target and by voting for West Burton B not to go ahead. Those Tory Members are being allowed a night off tonight—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Mr. Allen: —when some other Back Benchers on the Conservative side—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prescott: It is clear from what my hon. Friend has said that views on the matter are strongly held. They will be even stronger if the Minister refuses to intervene. It seems that the Government do not intend to give any opinion about the Bill, despite all the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee and despite the statements made by the Chairman and members of the Committee. We are witnessing a shabby use of Parliament in the private Bill procedures. More and more, the Department of Transport uses the private Bill procedure to avoid accountability. It has been argued that this is the place


where the Government will be held to account, but here we have a Government entirely silent on a major issue that will affect thousands of miners, that will close pits, that will have a massive effect on our balance of payments, and that will affect the economy, but there is not one word from the Government.
The country will register precisely what is happening. The Government are working behind the scenes, sending in their troops to secure victory for this Bill. The country will register disgust at these private procedures and at the cowardice of the Minister, who could not answer our case.

Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears from the Minister's inaction of the past few seconds that he is refusing to give the House an interpretation of the Committee's report on this Bill. You will be well aware of that report. It said that the procedure was
stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee.
Now the Minister appears to be refusing to tell us the Government's opinion of the report. Is that in order? Surely, before Third Reading, the House should know the Government's attitude to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Whether a Minister rises is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call an hon. Member who served on the Committee. Mr. Pat Wall.

Mr. Pat Wall: On the face of it, this is an unexceptionable Bill promoted by Associated British Ports, which runs 21 docks, whose holding company made £38 million profit in 1987—more than half of it from its docks operation—and which requested permission to build a deep water jetty that could take Panamax boats of up to 80,000 tonnes and Cape-sized boats of up to 120,000 tonnes, in competition with the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp, and possibly provide a number of jobs on Humberside and help to develop the Humber area. However, this supposedly unexceptionable Bill spent five and a half months in Committee, with sittings held three days a week, morning and afternoon, except during parliamentary recesses—the longest period in Committee of any Private Bill for many years.
As my hon. Friends have said, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister were seen marching into the Lobbies to cast their votes on Second Reading. That is unusual for a private Bill. Having attended every sitting of the Committee, apart from the first, and having been responsible in part for the report, which was unanimous, I observe that the Committee reached its decision only on the casting vote of the Chairman, that it rejected amendments only on the Chairman's casting vote, and that the Bill is controversial and deeply political.
The Bill is inextricably concerned with major political, social and economic issues of the deepest regional and national impact. It has to do with the massive importation of foreign coal and the effect that that would have on the already horrendous balance of trade figures. It deals with possible sanctions busting in connection with importing

South African coal, and possibly with importing coal from the semi-slave coalfield of Colombia. It is concerned with the future of British Coal as a viable national organisation and with the future of at least 15,000 miner's jobs in some of the most productive pits in Britain. The Bill concerns those miners' futures and those of their families, and the knock-on effect on other jobs in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
The Bill is about the future of the electricity generating industry—about supplies of steam coal, which is the basic fuel for the generating industry, and will be for the privatised generating industry if the legislation goes through. It means putting the basic raw material of the industry in the hands of foreign suppliers in half the major coal-burning power stations in Britain. It means enormous costs in redundancy payments, unemployment benefits, social security payments and the considerable social costs that to with a further massive wave of redundancies in areas already suffering large-scale unemployment and social deprivation.

Mr. Lofthouse: Did the Committee have all this in mind when it framed paragraph 22 of its special report, which says:
Before the Committee came to make a formal decision on, first, the amendment proposed by the British Coal Corporation, and, secondly, the Preamble itself, we agreed that if the Bill were allowed to proceed, this would be subject to conditions set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 below.
As far as I am aware, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), has not given us any assurance that those conditions will be fulfilled. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee said that the Bill should go through only if those conditions were agreed?

Mr. Wall: I shall come to that point, which will take up much of what I have to say.
I was speaking of the deeply political effects of the Bill. It will lower the purchasing powers of those areas—Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire—affected by the redundancies and it will deeply affect the work that local authorities have done in trying to counter the effects of the redundancies which have already hit mining communities so severely in the post-war period. It would also have a serious affect on the already overcrowded road system and consequential effects on the environment if the coal is carried from Immingham to the Aire and Trent valley power stations by a vast fleet of lorries.
All these issues were raised and discussed in Committee. The Bill makes political decisions, and that is not the role of Members of the House under the private Bill procedure. For three of the four of us, this was our first private Bill. We are all Back Benchers, and three of us were Members of less than two years' standing.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Wall: No, I will not.
We do not say that in any modesty. All three of us feel that we have the ability to proceed on the Bill, but we did not have the experience of private Bill procedure, and are still learning the general procedure of the House. This private Bill was concerned also with issues of deep and national significance.
On Second Reading, the promoter made no case for the Bill whatever. No case has ever been made out for the Bill in the House. Only in the 26 sittings of the Committee were


these issues debated. However, because of the Chairman's casting vote, there is no Report stage, with the result that the House has no opportunity to debate amendments, even the important ones suggested by British Coal and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which would have placed a restriction on the import of coal for three years after the passing of that Bill. I feel sorry for the Chairman.

Mr. McCartney: As a member of the Committee who served with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman a question? When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the sponsors of the Bill a minute ago, did he say, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to you"?

Mr. Wall: What is wrong with this Bill is that the Chairman of the Committee was placed in an impossible position. When we debated private Bill procedure in the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in a shrewd intervention, said that hon. Members are supposed to sit on a private Bill Committee to exercise independent and fair judgment. He did not use exactly those words, but that was what he meant. Normally, private Bills concern planning decisions which can be controversial. If they involve proposals to build a railway through Kent or a road through the Shipley constituency next to mine, or to build a tunnel under certain areas, they are controversial, but not politically controversial in the way that the future of the coal industry or the electricity generating industry in Britain is controversial.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.

Mr. Wall: I shall not give way.
Such Bills are not controversial in the way that this Bill affects social services and local communities. The Chairman of the Committee has had to try to justify what happened to the Bill in Committee because the promoter of the Bill has not had the guts to explain the Bill to the House; nor has the Minister been prepared to explain the issues to the House.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why Ministers might be scared to come to the Dispatch Box is that the Conservative Members enjoy wrapping themselves in the Union Jack and calling themselves the party of patriotism? While they stand at the front door defending this country, they are kicking the back door open with their heels and allowing our competitors to ransack our industries.

Mr. Wall: I wish to deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Eadie: I want to raise an extremely important point with my hon. Friend because he was present when a whole series of points of order were raised about amendments which were not selected. The occupant of the Chair promised me that the special report would be debated in the House and would be perfectly in order. This is our only opportunity to find out about the special report while my hon. Friend is making his speech. Will he explain to the House why the special report talks about energy policy, the Government being concerned and the free market when the Committee must have been well aware that the

privatisation of the electricity supply industry was passing through the House and one of the Government's main points was that there would be a free market in the coal industry? Will he explain to the House how the Committee reached that decision?

Mr. Wall: That is the crux of the debate and the reason why the report was produced. A reasonable and modest amendment was proposed by British Coal, calling for a time limit, or a free period, of three years in which coal could not be imported in excess of current figures into the Humber ports, given the exceptionally and unusually low stock prices for steam coal on the world market, and to allow the modernisation programme, which in the past was largely financed by Government money, to go ahead to allow steam coal to be produced more competitively and to allow British Coal to plan ahead. No private or state-owned coal industry can possibly plan ahead and invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the Selby coalfield and other new coalfields on the basis of a fanciful and theoretical market in the future.
For those reasons, we moved our simple, modest amendment, which was not accepted by the Committee. We then made a statement. The fact that we had to make a statement shows that this is not a normal—

Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) does not want to give way, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) should not persist.

Mr. Wall: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. He came in late—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Committee sat for five and a half months. We took the trouble to bring our report to the House and it is worth discussing. We said:
The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to he taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench M Ps, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private bill committee.
There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government.

Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that he should, perhaps, give way to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who may have something to tell us? In October 1988, according the Register of Members' Interests, he paid a visit to South Africa financed by the South African Government. We should know what has been going on in the background.

Hon. Members: Come on, Bellingham.

Mr. Wall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not a vindictive or suspicious person, but the Bill is being considered by the House after three Conservative


Members have visited coal interests in South Africa. We should know who paid for those trips, what the connections were and what happened on the trips.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wall: I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wall: I want to draw a contrast now. The Bill concerns the Humber ports. One of the interesting things about the Bill is that Conservative Members have been pushing the idea that Associated British Ports is wonderful. We have been told that it is a company whose total tonnage has risen since it was privatised from 77 million tonnes in 1972 to 90 million tonnes in 1987, with profits of £28 million. The total investment in new ports by the company is £80 million. Yet we are told that scheme ports are not viable, cannot operate, cannot attract investment and are not successful. On the one hand, we are told that Associated British Ports is a company that really needs and can really develop Immingham jetty; on the other hand we are told that we must abolish the dock labour scheme because scheme ports cannot provide such work. That argument is nonsense.

Mr. Bellingham: rose—

Mr. Wall: The Prime Minister—

Mr. Bellingham: I seek your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) has given way on several occasions to his hon. Friends, but not to any Conservative Member, including myself. I wish to tell him that my support for the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Bellingham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) wants to tell the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) something, he must not do it through me.

Mr. Bellingham: My support for the Bill has nothing whatever to do with a trip that I made to South Africa —[Interruption.]—but everything to do with that part of the Bill which relates to King's Lynn and to the £4 million that will be spent there to bring jobs to my constituency.

Mr. Wall: Although a scheme port is proposing a £30·5 million investment in the Humber jetty, when the Government are arguing for the abolition of the dock labour scheme they tell us that there is no investment in scheme ports. Although the total amount of investment proposed over three years around Immingham on the river Humber is about £370 million, the Government say that investment cannot be attracted to scheme ports. That is what they say when they want to reduce dockers to the kind of conditions experienced by my grandfather in Manchester, and that is why I am political and here in the House.
The secret of these ports is their geographical position and it is that which affects this decision about bringing coal into the river Humber, which will then be used to make

bigger profits for the privatised electricity industry. I quote yet again from the Committee's report, because it is not first a question of jobs. The Committee also decided
that if the petitioners' assessment of the amount of coal likely to be imported through Immingham proves correct, then the consequences for the British coal industry could be, to use the word employed by Counsel for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 'horrendous'. Those consequences might include the closure of as many as 15 collieries, the loss of 15,000 jobs, the permanent sterilization of energy resources, and knock on effects on local communities across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. The Committee is aware of the dangers of allowing the import of coal on this scale, and is very sympathetic to the petitioners in the case they have made concerning this.
We must also consider the social costs of the proposals. The evidence given to the Committee by Dr. Benn Fine, reader in economics at Birkbeck college, stated:
According to our figures, the economic and social costs of pit closures will be made up of three components. First, lump sum redundancy payments will be of the order of between £191 and £360 million, depending upon the extent and consequences"—

Mr. Michael Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I cannot accept the closure.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. I know that a heavy task is placed upon you in protecting the rights of Back Benchers and I want to facilitate that difficult task. I know also that you will be sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because he attempted to move the Third Reading as soon as the Division on the previous business was completed. He was called at 7.29 pm. There were points of order for more than half an hour and all those points of order were ruled out of order by Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it was quite clear that all those points of order were entirely bogus—[Interruption.] The first speech from the Opposition, from the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), lasted over half an hour. It is clear that this is not an attempt to debate the issues, but to waste time.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would want the House to move to a decision on these important matters. Therefore, can you give me some intimation about when the Bill might be brought back to the House, because as we saw clearly in the vote on Second Reading, a large majority of hon. Members want freedom of trade—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide when the Bill is to be debated again.

Mr. Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on an aspect of the matter. We have not had a full three-hour debate, as points of order lasted until about 10 minutes to 8. We have had a substantial debate that has lasted over two hours, but we have not heard a single word in support of the Bill, either from its promoter or from any other hon. Member, apart from one reference to its minor King's Lynn content. If the House is further to consider this wretched Bill, I hope that Conservative Members who support it—whether or not they have been to South Africa as guests of the South African coal industry—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 25 May.

Community Charges

10 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) clearly said in your hearing and in the hearing of other hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill, was in the pockets of the sponsors of the Bill. That was a clear allegation of impropriety and dishonesty against my hon. Friend. You should ask the hon. Member for Makerfield to withdraw that quite disgraceful slur.

Mr. Speaker: I did not judge that remark to be unparliamentary. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was present, and he should have challenged it at the time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 11 May and again on 23 June, the Second Reading debate lasted for three hours and 34 minutes. We have had two hours and 31 minutes of the debate on Third Reading of a Bill that has no amendments. I seek your guidance on how much longer we might have to debate the Bill. Last night, in just over an hour we had three Third Readings, and this debate has now been going on for as long as a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker: When the Chairman of Ways and Means puts the Bill on the Order Paper we shall know how much longer it will take. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Alan Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for extending the debate tonight, but I ask that, in the next debate, consideration be given to hon. Members representing coalfield areas. So far in the debate, which has lasted for two hours, less than 25 minutes has been given to hon. Members from such areas.

Mr. Speaker: As always, careful consideration will be given to hon. Members with specific interests.
There are six prayers before the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: This time, I think that we will need more than six prayers. Perhaps the Minister will join me in one in due course.
I beg to move the first motion on the Order Paper,
That the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 438), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
As you have stated, Mr. Speaker, we are also to discuss the next five motions:
That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 439), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 440), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.


That the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 441), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 442), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 443), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
Of the six prayers, the most important is the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, No. 438, and that is the one to which we will probably direct most of our comments in the relatively short debate tonight.
Not for the first time, late at night, the Government are trying to slip through important regulations to avoid getting the matter into the media and drawing attention to something that they know is a deeply unpopular tax that will be enforced by regulations that will be equally unpopular. The regulations contain powers and enforcement orders, and many people will be surprised to know their extent. The Local Government Finance 1988—the poll tax and national non-domestic rate—contains no fewer than 736 matters that are left to regulation, determination and order.
Once again, the Government propose to legislate by regulation, order and simple determination of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a centralising and authoritarian Government who choose to act in that manner. I cannot think of any previous Government who included no fewer than 736 matters in a Bill. The Secretary of State for the Environment will have enormous powers. Not for the first time, the Secretary of State has introduced a Bill in which he gives himself powers to do what he likes. That is what he has done in respect of the poll tax and what he continues to do in a number of other Bills before the House.
It is argued that in some way the poll tax will be an easier tax. It is claimed that it will be less bureaucratic, simpler to administer and easier to understand. It is said that it will carry the public with it because, unlike the rates, everyone will understand what the poll tax involves.
It is worth bearing in mind that there is a lot more to administer in the poll tax. The cost of administration will be much higher than the cost of administering the rates. Regulation 23(7) deals with joint and several liability. It contains a sentence which has more than 139 words with eight cross-references to other regulations, which contain another 30 cross-references. We are told that that is designed to make things simpler. It will not make them simpler; it will make them considerably more complex—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How much longer are you going to allow 15 separate conversations to take place at the same time? This is a Tory tax, but there is no excuse for Tory Members trying to drown what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Soley: Tory Members are trying to kid the electorate that somehow the poll tax is simpler. I will quote from the regulation which deals with joint and several liability. It states:

Regulations 20(5)(b) and 21(8)(b) apply as if the reference to the chargeable person includes, insofar as concerns the difference between the joint and several liability under regulation 22(1) or (2) of the spouse or manager in respect of the appropriate amount or recalculated amount referred to in those provisions and the amount he has paid in respect of the estimated amount so referred to, a reference to the spouse or manager, and as if the reference to regulation 20(8) were a reference to that provision as applied by paragraph (9) below; and accordingly any requirement which may be made by the chargeable person under regulation 20(5) or 21(9) for a calculation of the appropriate amount or for a recalculation of the estimated amount (as the case may be) may also be made by the spouse or manager.
That is supposed to clarify the matter for people who are living together as man and wife. What nonsense. Most people will not understand it.
This part of the regulations came into effect yesterday. The Government postponed the implementation of regulations 4 and 5 which give community charge registration officers power to demand information, until 22 May. They did that, they said, to avoid the local elections and because they said that they wanted to enable their canvass to begin after the Government's so-called publicity campaign—or more accurately, propaganda campaign—had taken effect.
Of course, there were no elections in most Association of Metropolitan Authorities areas. Most of the regulations could have taken effect already in some of the areas, but they did not. The purpose of the regulations is to enable community charge regulation officers to address a form to the occupier and require any occupier to supply information in respect of other occupiers, it penalises any occupier for not providing that information.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I do not want to anticipate a point that my hon. Friend may be about to make, but, in his experience, as in mine, is it not unusual that we should be debating regulations the day after they came into force? The Government cannot even organise their timetable so that the House, which is supposed to debate such matters, can do so before the regulations come into operation.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend makes the point that I have made on a number of occasions. The Government not only take incredible centralising authoritarian powers to themselves in a wide-ranging way, as they have done here, but they also slip measures through late at night in the way that he has described by bringing them into effect before the House has debated them.
Regulation 6 deals with information from public bodies.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between an occupier having a duty to fill in the electoral registration form in respect of other people in his House and having a duty to fill in the community charge form in respect of other people?

Mr. Soley: Yes, I can. One gives something and the other takes something away. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the importance of electoral registration as opposed to the poll tax, which is an unfair tax imposed on people in a way that will, in many cases, push them into poverty and is unacceptable. I would be more inclined to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he had lived up to the promise that he gave the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill, on which I too was a member, to meet the homeless people with me tonight. He


refused and, instead, went off for dinner. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that he wants to intervene. All of a sudden he wants to be heard. But he did not want to hear the people whom I was going to take him to hear. There is a lesson there for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Soley: When the hon. Gentleman promises to meet people and listen to them and then breaks that promise, he cannot assume that he will be listened to any more than the people to whom he has refused to listen. For that reason, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement to the House that he knows to be untrue and then to refuse to allow the hon. Member to respond to it?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that no hon. Member makes any statement to the House that he knows to be untrue. We are all hon. Members here.

Mr. Soley: I know it to be true.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Soley: Those who do not think that it is true can read the Official Report.

Sir Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a long-established practice in the House where one hon. Member refers to another to allow that other hon. Member to give an explanation?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly our tradition.

Mr. Soley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) heard what I said. I told the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that if he had listened in the way that he said he would, he would be entitled to be listened to. It is precisely because he will not listen to others that I am telling him that he cannot assume that he will be given the respect that he refuses to give to others. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should understand. It is quite good training for people to understand that and behave properly.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that this is a prayer, not a sermon?

Mr. Speaker: Before we proced, let me say that we should all listen to one another's arguments in the House.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is right.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Soley: He reminds me—

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us listen to one another's arguments.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear you say that it is the tradition of the House that if an hon. Member accuses another hon. Member of something, the first hon. Member gives way?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly did say that. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened and it seems that he did not like the reply that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave him.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) broke an undertaking. That is a serious matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith say that the hon. Member for Pembroke was not listening. I am saying to hon. Members in all parts of the House that we should all listen.

Mr. Soley: It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. and the hon. Member for Pembroke should do something about it. As I was saying—

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Soley: As I was saying to the Minister on the issue of prayers and sermons, the poll tax is a lovely example of the way in which Tory Members pray on their knees on Sundays and on their neighbours for the rest of the week. That is what the poll tax is all about.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Soley: No, I will not give way.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has impugned my integrity. He said that I broke a promise, and he now refuses to give way so that I may make it clear that that is not the case. This morning I telephoned his research assistant and explained that because there was a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock and because I was engaged on the previous business of the House, tonight was, not convenient, and I said that we must arrange another night when I could take part in the visit.

Mr. Speaker: If we can get on with the debate, I might be able to call the hon. Member for Pembroke so that he can make those points at greater length.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I do not want to intrude, as the phrase has it, on private grief, or to raise instances from last April, you will have heard the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) explain—I appreciate that it is not your responsibility, Mr. Speaker—that he was on a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock. From 7 until 10 o'clock we were engaged on private business. It is interesting to hear that the Tory party puts on a three-line Whip—[Interruption.]—for private business.

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about Whips.

Mr. Soley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) points out, the hon. Member for Pembroke has given the game away. The Conservatives put on a three-line Whip for private business. But even that does not work, because the agreement with the hon. Gentleman was simple. It was that I would have him back here for the 10 o'clock Division, but he still would not come.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to use your influence to ensure that we get back to the debate, rather than consider the outside activities of hon. Members, because some of us actually want to talk about the community charge?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a prayer —in fact six prayers—that the debate continues for one and a half hours and that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we may now proceed in good order.

Mr. Soley: I am satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke has got the message.
The exemptions order deals with information from public bodies. The measure permits the Secretary of State to declare some information off limits to community charge registration officers. The Secretary of State has used his discretion nervously in this regulation. Names and addresses held by local authorities are off limits only if they are held for police or employment purposes. That means that if an authority has names and addresses held for sensitive purposes—child abuse or something of that nature—those names and addresses, but not the reasons for holding them, must be passed to CCROs on request.
Social services directors have criticised that—I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raising this issue in a late night debate—because it is seen as a breach of trust and a possible deterrent to those seeking help from, or volunteering information to, social services.
Confusion has also arisen over lists of names and addresses for education purposes. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not available to CCROs but that if the same names and addresses are held by local education authorities for the same purposes, CCROs must be given them on request. The upshot is that local authority employees and parents of schoolchildren will have greater rights of privacy from the CCRO than the people with whom social service departments have to deal in difficult circumstances in respect of child abuse, wife battering, and many other sensitive issues. Such information will not enjoy the same degree of protection.
Under regulation 17, people may have to pay a full year's charge in less than 10 instalments. Ministers say that in almost all cases people will be able to pay in 10 instalments, but that is not so. If the percentage payable falls below a certain level, the chargeable person will have to pay larger instalments or the full sum. That will hit the poor, despite the Government's assurance that it will not do so.
Regulation 23(7) deals with the famous "joint and several liability", which the Government tried to hide from public knowledge in distributing a leaflet that does not make it clear that one will be liable for the poll tax of one's spouse in certain circumstances. Right hon. and hon. Members know about that liability, but the public may not do so. It is important that they are given genuine information. When I forced the Government to withdraw the leaflet "Tenants' Choice" because it was misleading, they did so quietly and unannounced. If the Government know, as they surely must, that the community charge leaflet does not present good factual information that will help the public to understand the poll tax, then they should

do the same again. The Government must appreciate that that leaflet can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who are trying to understand the complexities of the poll tax.
Part IV deals with enforcement and sets out the full panoply of the enforcement powers available to local authorites. In outline, having obtained a liability order from magistrates, a local authority can demand information from a debtor, make an attachment of earnings order, apply for a distress warrant or the sale of goods, and in certain circumstances apply for attachment of benefits and even imprisonment. We are debating regulations that will result in people who are unable to pay the poll tax being fined, and if they are unable to pay that fine, being sent to prison. We are considering the possibility that poll tax debtors will go to prison.
Conservative Members have perhaps deliberately hidden from the public the fact that if one is imprisoned for a criminal offence such as murder, one does not have to pay the poll tax. But if one is imprisoned because of one's inability to pay the poll tax, one is still liable to pay it even while in prison. The very people who cannot afford to pay the poll tax, and who are imprisoned as a consequence, are still expected to continue paying it while in gaol. One is better off committing a serious crime and being imprisoned for that than being sent to gaol for non-payment of the poll tax. Surely no one believes that that is desirable or necessary.
Other regulations deal with attachment of earnings orders, distress orders, and other provisions. Unfortunately, the debate is limited. It should have been much wider, so that right hon. and hon. Members could discuss the issues in depth. It is important to understand that when poll tax collectors use a device such as a distress warrant, for example, they will have extreme difficulty in identifying the ownership of goods.
Take the example of the young person of 18 or 19 who has just become liable for poll tax and who does not pay it. If a distress warrant is levied against him and an order for seizure of goods is made, that young man may say, "That is not my property. It belongs to my sister or brother." If Conservative Members are naive enough to believe such things do not happen, they should talk to fines supervision officers, for that problem is one that they frequently encounter. The Minister, who I believe is a magistrate, will know that that is right. We are prepared, however, to slip the regulations through after an hour and a half of debate.
Statutory instrument No. 443 deals with student regulations, which govern, among other things, who will receive the automatic 80 per cent. discount. YTS trainees will not receive it; nor will postgraduate students seconded by their employers in, for instance, the police, the armed forces and the Civil Service. Student nurses on the present nurse training schemes will not receive it—although some schemes allow them to do so—and 19-year-olds at school will not either. They are not exempt like 18-year-olds; they must apply for a rebate.
Such issues will hit the electorate suddenly in April next year. The Government may try to slide the regulations through late at night in the irresponsible and authoritarian way that they adopt from time to time, but people in the real world will not forget.
In the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order, the Secretary of State has refused to use his discretion to extend the "severely mentally impaired"


criterion to degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. That, along with the hour and a half that we have been allowed in which to debate the orders, shows what a mean-minded Government we have The exemption of certain mentally handicapped groups had to be squeezed out of them, and it is not difficult to find groups such as those suffering from Alzheimer's disease who are still not exempt.
What will Conservative Members do when people come to their surgeries and ask, "Why should my relative, who is suffering form Alzheimer's disease, pay the poll tax?"? They will use the same dodges as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who slipped out rather than coming out with me tonight to see the homeless in the streets. They will do a big cover-up: they will con and duck and weave to fool people into believing that they care. They will say, "I will see the Minister about this." But tonight they will go through the Lobby and vote for the regulations, and that is why the Opposition will oppose them.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the instruments, and I do not think that the Government have anything to hide or to fear from them. We made it clear at the time of the general election that we believed that there was a need for reform of the local government finance system, and these measures will ensure that that reform is implemented as fairly as possible. If anomalies crop up during that impression, we shall doubtless be able to take them into account.
I find no difficulty in giving my entire support to a system that replaces the present outdated and unfair rating arrangements. The idea that it reflects ability to pay is absolute nonsense. On Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, I had the opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—whether he thought that the present system reflected ability to pay. It is obvious that it does not: there are so many anomalies.
When, not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member of State visited my constituency, I was able to take him to an estate agent and show him the huge range of rates payable on properties advertised there, which did not relate at all to the capital value of those properties. So I think it is absolutely right that we press on with the introduction of the community charge under these instruments.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend for clarification on one point, and I am sure there is an answer to it.
I was rather perturbed to see from statutory instrument No. 439, in schedule 1, regarding the setting up of the tribunals, that in the area of each non-metropolitan county other than Essex and Hampshire the appointing body is the county council. It is a rather complicated order and I want to know whether the county council, when appointing these bodies, will have to comply with the Widdicombe demand that there should be a balance of political complexion. I am worried because, if not, in my county, the Labour party will undoubtedly pack the committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me some assurance on that.
There has been some talk about the problem of joint and several liability. I do not think there is any problem here whatsoever. Most people will understand the fairness of this scheme.
In my opinion, the whole point of the introduction of the scheme is to bring greater accountability to local government. Unfortunately, that is sadly lacking with the present set-up. It is important that we have accountability, and by greatly extending the base of people who are paying for local authority services, we shall bring greater accountability.
We need to make it more and more clear that quite a considerable amount of money that local government spends will come either from Government grant or from the unified business rate. The amount that we are asking the community charge payer in each of the boroughs to pay is a very small proportion of the overall community charge. It is a small proportion that will represent an accountability of what a local authority is spending.

Mr. Allen McKay: Can the hon. Gentleman explain where the accountability comes in? At present, something like 50 or 60 per cent is raised by the local authority—that is accountability—and it is now being put down to 25 per cent. Accountability has been thrown out of the window.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not quite sure why the hon. Gentleman is complaining. If he is complaining that the community charge will mean that a lower percentage of the money collected by the councils will come from the community charge payer, I should have thought he would welcome that.

Mr. McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, because I think that the hon. Gentleman misrepresented his own point.

Mr. McKay: What we complain about is that most of the community charge falls on the community, not on business, as the rates do now. Therefore, 95 per cent. of the people that I represent will pay a vast increase on what they are paying at the present time.

Mr. McLoughlin: If 95 per cent. will have to pay a vast increase on what they pay at the moment, the hon. Gentleman must be representing some very high-spending councils. The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. He cannot suggest to me that the present system is in some ways fair, because I do not believe that anybody can justify the system as it stands at the moment. There is a need for a new system for greater accountability.

Mr. Gummer: I wonder if it would help my hon. Friend in replying to the hon. Gentleman if he were to remind him —I am sure he would like to—that the proportion of local authority spending now covered by the domestic rate is about 25 per cent. That will continue under the community charge, and the business rate will continue to cover about 25 per cent. So the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not wish to take issue with my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked me why the community charge would lead to greater accountability. Everybody will pay something towards local government expenditure. That will lead to greater participation in local government


elections. All too often, we hear of only a very small number of people bothering to vote in county council or district council elections. The community charge will, I believe, lead to more people voting in local elections. They will take a greater interest in local government. Every hon. Member ought to welcome that. If they believe, as I do, that local government plays an important role, they ought to regret the abysmally poor turnout at local elections. There are no problems over joint and several liability. That is an Opposition red herring.
Ministers and many of my hon. Friends have criticised Greenwich for taking the Government to court. However,

by doing so, Greenwich council ensured that my right hon. Friend's leaflet was given a great deal of publicity. We should be glad that Greenwich drew the nation's attention to the fact that the Government were telling people about the important changes that are to take place. Many county councils and other councils that are controlled by Labour have told ratepayers all sorts of falsehoods about the community charge. Rather than criticise Greenwich council, as many of my hon. Friends have done, I pay it a tribute. It has done a great service to the Government and to the nation. People now know what the community charge is all about.
We have nothing to hide. The regulations should be passed so that local government finance and accountability can be made much more fair.

Mr. Simon Hughes: These measures are the latest substantial step down the road towards three dangerous conclusions. For many people it is a step towards greater poverty, and for many people and many local authorities it is a step towards more bureaucracy. For many people it is also a step towards less liberty.
The poll tax will result in greater poverty because the system requires that, no matter how poor one is, in most cases one will not be exempt. The instruments implement attachment orders if people cannot pay. In the end, they will be unable to escape. I was once asked at a public meeting whether I advised people not to pay. I said, "I can't advise you to do that, because they will get you in the end—it would be far worse to suffer the penalty of going through the courts and your goods being taken than to stand up, argue the case and try to ameliorate the effects of the poll tax."
Like every other hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, I opposed the Bill but came to the conclusion that if the system could cope with the bureaucracy it would eventually catch people. The legal penalties are in place. Those who already have to bear exceptional financial burdens will be susceptible to pressure from those who implement the distraint mechanisms provided for in the instruments. To escape that pressure they will have to borrow money. They will then fall prey to the abhorrent alternative of getting even further into debt to those who charge high rates of interest to help them out.
Secondly, some people who are extremely poor will not be exempt, for no good reason. The Government decided that students should pay only 20 per cent. If we have to have the system, that concession should be made. But people on training schemes may have an income substantially less per week that many students have, even on their low grants. The payment on a youth training scheme might be only £30 per week, whereas a student at a university, college or polytechnic might receive the equivalent of £50 per week. There will be differences between students and student nurses. Some people with higher activity costs will be expected to pay an undiscounted rate.
Thirdly, there are exemptions—thank goodness—for some mentally handicapped people. Those are the least of the concessions that could have been made. But other categories of people in equal mental adversity whose condition physically or mentally is equally problematical in terms of their ability to play a ful part in society, will still be required to pay. There is a specific exemption in the definition of residential homes for people who live in residential accommodation run by the Abbeyfield Society. That is specified in statutory instrument 222, paragraph 9(1). I welcome that—the society was founded in Rotherhithe—but I find it difficult to understand why it should be mentioned by name and be exempt when many other organisations running residential homes are not.
Next, there will be massive bureaucracy as a result of the measures. The estimate by the Department of the Environment of the amount that people will pay in poll tax was based on 100 per cent. compliance, with everybody being found and everybody paying, but I gather that it is now accepted that there was a substantial under-estimate of the cost of collection. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us in his reply what was the original estimate for

the cost of collection in Scotland and what is the latest figure in practice. I understand that the cost of collection in Scotland is about 20 per cent. higher than the Government estimated. That means that a massive additional cost will have to be met by the people paying the poll tax.
There is dangerous bureaucracy, as evidenced in the issue that my colleagues in the Isle of Wight county council have taken up with the Government and challenged. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not to be made available to the registration officers, but that if the same names and addresses are held by the local education authority they are to be available. Names and addresses might well be held by an education authority, because it might also be the social services authority, and might therefore know who the adults were in the house in which a child lived. The registration officer may acquire the information, but only by a bureaucratic procedure that will add to the work load not just of the collecting authority but of another authority as well.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to but did not amplify the gory details of perhaps the most classic piece of drafting in any of the six orders —paragraph 23(7) of SI 438 on joint and several liability, a one-sentence paragraph of 139 words with eight cross-references in turn referring to 30 other regulations. If that is clear legislation, there is something wrong with the definition of clarity used by Government Departments.
There are also illogical and bureaucratic differences between people of 18 who are at work and have to pay, and people of 19 who are still at school. There are all sorts of ridiculous provisions which will make the system impossible to work. The worst aspect is tracking people down. Let us consider students in London. Students move around. They do not have the same accommodation for three years; often they do not even have the same accommodation for one year. In London there are more than 100 colleges, and there are 33 local authorities. Often the colleges do not know where the students are staying. There is a shortage of accommodation. Students move and cannot be tracked down, but local authorities will be charged with the responsibility of trying to find them.
Equally, there are many homeless people in constituencies such as mine. People live on the floors of other people's homes. They stay for a week or a fortnight at their brother's, sister-in-law's, aunt's or friend's and then move on. It is naive to imagine that when they move their first act will be to go to the local treasurer's office to inform him that they have changed flats and will be living somewhere else for a short time. The administration involved is ludicrous.
Another bad bureaucratic development has to do with payment by instalments. Apparently, it will be possible to pay in this way. That is fine. We can pay our rates in instalments now—10 of them per year—if we ask to do so. But the regulations require a minimum instalment of £5. The Government said during the debates on the legislation that poor people would have maximum rebates and would be able to pay, for example, on a weekly basis—with their rent, if they were council tenants. If the minimum instalment is £5, they will not pay small amounts regularly over the year. To a basic pensioner, £5 is a substantial sum if he has little else on which to live.
Finally, there are the dangers to liberty, which constitute the most frightening aspect of the six


regulations. I hope that all hon. Members are aware that the enforcment officers can demand that occupiers of houses give information about other occupiers, even if they have no legal responsibility for them. We can be required to grass on other adults to whom we are not related. Two other adults live in my house now. As the occupier of the house, I shall be obliged by the regulations to divulge information—if I am asked—and there is a penalty if I do not comply. The system should be directed at making us personally responsible, not at creating a nation of sneaks to do the Government's job for them.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way unless the hon. Gentleman is generous enough to concede that grassing should not be included in the legislation and to vote against it. It is an unjustified invasion of the civil liberties of a country which is supposed to be setting an example—

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way, unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the concession that I asked for, and I do not think that he is.
Local authorities will be given a wide brief to collect information for the register, including collecting from the commercial sector. If they collect information from every Tom, Dick and Harry, there will be even more risks of data-based private information being leaked.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I hesitate to interrupt, but unless there are extreme differences of which I am unaware in the English and Welsh legislation, it is the poll tax registration officer and not the local authority who collects the information—and is responsible to no one.

Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Technically, he is right. The poll tax officer is responsible to the Government, if to anyone. The problem is that he will be perceived as going out on behalf of the local authority, because unless the local authority receives the money it will not be able to spend it. So local authorities face a horrendous dilemma—if they want the full whack to spend on social services, home helps and care for the mentally ill, they will have to employ a large number of people to do the impossible bureaucratic job of securing maximum compliance with poll tax, and they will waste a great deal of money in the process, so their other budgets will suffer accordingly.
Reams of sensitive information about people's past records, their relationships and their mental and physical history will be around. If all such information is to be open so that the system can acquire it, people will be able to pry on behalf of the Government to collect money in a way that we have not seen before. It is already clear that the Government are centralising our society. Through these measures, they are taking steps that will allow them to pry and probe into homes in England and Wales as well as those in Scotland in a way that has never before been tolerated. If we had a representative Government, we should never have these instruments. The sooner we get rid

of the present Government and replace them with a representative Government, the sooner we shall get rid of these measures.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall first place on record the facts of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said yesterday and today, rather than what he chose to say in the House, after which he refused to let the hon. Member whose honour he impugned have the opportunity to reply. He wrote a letter to me yesterday, saying:
I have arranged for us to be in Centrepoint (hostel for homeless youngsters) at 8.45 tomorrow as agreed.
I shall have to return to the House of Commons to lead the Poll Tax debate at 10 pm but workers at Centrepoint would like to take you to meet other youngsters who can't find a hostel place.
When I got that letter, I pointed out to his research assistant, as I could not get hold of the hon. Gentleman, that I also had to be in the Chamber for the debate at 10 o'clock, and that I had to be there before then because I was acting as Whip for the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I offered the hon. Gentleman's research assistant another date. I said that I would be very happy to go on another occasion.
I am still happy to do that, but I am not happy to go with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who has been so dishonest in his suggestions that I had tried to get out of an engagement. I put that on record as an example of the behaviour that we had from the hon. Gentleman in Committee considering the Local Government and Housing Bill, and what we are getting now. That is cheap, dishonest and contemptible.
The debate on the community charge is an important one, but I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who has just said that it is outrageous that he, as the occupier of a house, should declare who the other adult occupiers of his house are. He has to do that for the electoral roll. That is the duty imposed by law on the citizen. The Liberal party always supported it. The Representation of the People Act 1918 was a Liberal Act. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should think it right for the Government to impose a duty on the occupier to declare who is living in the house in order that they may vote, as is their right, but that he does not think it is also his duty, as the main occupier of the house, to declare, for the purpose of paying the charge for which they get that vote—

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he has repeatedly told the House that he intends to break the law, and that he does not intend to pay the community charge, so we do not want to listen to him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board this point? The difference between the two, as I am sure that he understands, is that the opportunity given to the occupier to declare who is there so that they have a vote gives those people a right and an intitlement. This is different. It imposes on them an obligation with financial consequences and prospective penalties for them as well as


for the occupier. This, in legislation, where people are meant to be individually accountable, by his Government's definition.

Mr. Bennett: That is an interesting proposition. The hon. Gentleman thinks it right that the law should say that where someone is to get a right, that must be declared, but when there is a duty or an obligation on them as a citizen, we keep quiet about that. That is disgraceful. That is the mentality of someone who does not report accidents to the police and does not want to know when there has been a crime because that is not a part of his duty as a member of the community. The SDLP should be in favour of citizens playing their full part.

Mr. Gummer: The duty and obligation to pay the community charge occurs not because a person's name has been put on the list but because the person has that duty as a result of an Act passed by the House. Therefore, the person who fills in the form does not extend the duty and the obligation to the people whose names and addresses he puts on that form.

Mr. Bennett: My right hon. Friend anticipates my next point. The Local Government Act 1988 was in the Conservative party manifesto on which I and my colleagues fought and won the 1987 general election. It was clearly set out in that manifesto and was passed by both Houses of Parliament without any difficulty whatsoever.
Opposition Members are seeking to tell the public which laws they should have to obey and which laws they should ignore.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Conservative manifesto specifically excluded any commitment to poll tax capping. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that an amendment is introduced to remove that?

Mr. Bennett: The Conservative manifesto contains nothing whatsoever about the poll tax. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the community charge, we might listen to him. It is important that we call it the community charge because that is what it is. It is a fundamental philosophical point that the community charge is a charge for local government services. It is not a tax; it is a charge to all adults who are not exempt to pay for the services that they receive. It is a charge, just as the cost of a television licence is a charge, or the excise duty on a motor vehicle is a charge. People would find it strange if they were charged different sums for exactly the same services. Every person over 18 has one vote and has equal benefit from local government services.
The nonsense of the rates was that they were fixed not on the ability of the person to pay or his ability to use the services, but merely on the size of his house. A ridiculous and unfair situation could occur when four or five adults in a house would pay exactly the same in rates as one person living next door— [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is shouting, perhaps he would like to intervene.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to intervene. Does he not recognise that, on the whole, richer people live in higher-rated houses?

Mr. Bennett: That is totally irrelevant, because it is not the house that uses the services. The people inside the

house use local government services. The house is irrelevant. It was a convenience used by Victorian administrators who introduced the rates as a simple way of collecting a charge from local ratepayers. It had no bearing on the services that those ratepayers used. Houses do not use local government services, and five adults living in a house will use those services five times as much as one individual.

Mr. Carlile: Is it not a logical corollary to assume that the hon. Gentleman believes that all people should pay the same amount of income tax, whatever they earn?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difference between a charge and a tax. Income tax is a graduated tax for all the services available within the community, and quite clearly people are charged according to their ability to pay. The community charge applies to local authority services, and there is a limit to the services that a person can use.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that people on higher incomes would be paying more for local government finance as they will be paying more taxes towards central Government funding of local government? Does he accept that there is a rebate system of up to 80 per cent. so that those who are less well off will pay less under the community charge?

Mr. Bennett: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) anticipates my next point. In England, 46 per cent. of local government services are provided by central Government grants, and in Wales the figure is 66 per cent. Therefore, those paying the top rate of income tax will pay 15 times as much towards local government services as those on the bottom rate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware how much pain the Labour party's proposals will cause poor people in Northolt and other parts of my constituency who are fortunate enough to own their own home? They would be forced to pay rates according to the updated capital value of their home, as well as local income tax, under Labour's proposal. Those people are already in great difficulty trying to pay rates that have been doubled by the Labour-controlled Ealing council in three years. Many have to go without food to pay those rates.

Mr. Bennett: I have the most perceptive colleagues possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) anticipates what I was going to say. In Ealing, the rates are currently £537 per head, for those who pay them. The community charge will be £234 and on the Labour plan of 80:20 for capital value tax and local income tax, the unfortunate Ealing resident would pay £695.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I take my hon. Friend back briefly to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? Surely my constituency is not unusual, in that it contains many elderly couples and many elderly people who, sadly, have lost their spouse. They are living in houses that represent what they were earning many years ago. The houses no longer represent their current income,


because the owners are pensioners. Those are the people who are paying outrageous rates at present and for whom the community charge will deliver justice at long last.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as usual, speaks for the under-privileged in his constituency in a way that Labour Members do not.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the relation of individuals to the service that they require that those who have the most children and who need the most social services should be paying even more because they use more services?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman used the word "require". I said that the community charge was fair because it imposed the same charge on each individual who had a vote. The important point is, if it is related to voting, that people have a vote in local government elections, so they should make an equal contribution if they are able to do so. For those who cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, there is a rebate of up to 80 per cent. of the full charge.
It is a misnomer to talk about "student nurses". They are receiving a salary and are earning twice as much—if not more—as students on a grant. To describe them as students is not correct. They earn as much as many other young workers and those other young workers will be in the same position with the community charge. I regret that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should speak about student nurses without making that point clear.
The Social and Liberal Democrats want to have some form of local income tax which would mean, in most cases, the doubling of what people will pay in the community charge. The Labour party wants to go further. It wants local income tax and capital value rates as well. That would mean, in many cases, three or four times the amount people will pay under the community charge. The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate has been immoderately short—

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not presume to attempt to influence your choice of speaker. I want only to ask you to consider the following. This evening, the Government tabled six sets of instruments, with more than 94 pages of detail. We have had the maximum allocated time of one and a half hours. It may not be in your province to decide how much business can be tabled within a certain length of time, but it must be obvious to you—given that one of your roles is the protection of Back Benchers' interests—that to have no Opposition Back Bench speaker called during the debate due to the compression of business is not a democratic way to debate these matters. Perhaps when we come to consider the regulations further, either extra time could be allocated or those who have shown an interest by attempting to speak today might be borne in mind.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The House agreed last Friday that we should proceed in this manner today.

Mr. Murphy: I can understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is of course, important to have a Welsh dimension to this debate, and although the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) represents a Welsh constituency, I am bound to say that he does not by any means speak for the vast majority of people in the Principality on the question of the poll tax. Indeed, he does not even speak for his own constituency, in as much as 60 per cent. of the people in his constituency voted for parties which opposed the poll tax at the last general election.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I won.

Mr. Murphy: Hidden in the details and complexities of the legislation lie some of the most fundamental problems of the poll tax and of how to administer it. We already know that the Government have introduced a tight timetable for registration. The period from 22 May—yesterday—to 1 December gives local authorities very little time in which to put the registers into operation.
There will be problems with social security records, which are bound to be used. Even library records will probably be used. The lists of parents that have to be provided to local authorities under the Education Reform Act 1988 will also probably be used.
There is no special treatment in the regulations for youngsters on youth training schemes, for student nurses, or for 19-year-olds who are still at school. We all know that the expense to both higher and further education colleges of appointing certification officers is bound to be immense and to add to the financial strain that is already affecting our educational establishments.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who has now left the Chamber, referred to the tribunals to be set up by this system of regulations. I ask the Minister to ensure that they are properly staffed and properly financed, because my experience as a former member of a rating and valuation panel is that such staff have had to suffer a shoestring budget for many years. All the signs are that the tribunals will be used much more extensively than they are at the moment.
I also ask the Minister to ensure that Ministers in Wales and his fellow Ministers in England consult valuation officers because I know that in south Wales there is great unease among those civil servants about the loss of their jobs. On the issue of enforcement, the court order for the attachment of earnings could lead to the dismissal of badly protected casuals and part-time employees. In Wales, we know all about that, because half our female work force is in low-paid part-time employment. Deductions from earnings take no account of the number of dependants or of mortgages or other vital commitments that people may have.
One problem with the method of payment and billing is that low-income poll tax payers will not benefit from instalments if the instalment results in a payment of less than £5. That is bound to hit those areas of the country, especially Wales, with an above average number of low-paid workers. One in four workers in Wales earns below £150 per week. If that is not a measure of low pay, I do not know what is.
Just before Christmas 1988, the Minister visited Cardiff and the local paper, the Western Mail, reported:
According to Mr. Gummer, the son of a Welsh speaking vicar, the poor will get a better deal under the community


charge as will Wales itself because the new poll tax system will transfer almost £800 million a year from the rich south-east to poorer parts of Britain.
That not only shows a fundamental misinterpretation of how the business rate operates in Wales and England separately, but also a fundamental lack of knowledge of how ordinary people live in Wales and in other parts of the country. I hope that when the instruments come into force they will be enforced with a certain amount of compassion.
As for the cost implications of these measures in Wales, we were told only last week that the district councils in the Principality will be some £3 million pounds short. The local authorities wanted a specific grant of 75 per cent. towards the cost of administering the poll tax, not the uncertainties and the vagaries of the block grant. In my local authority of Torfaen, because poll tax spending was counted as part of the GRE, the council would have been better off without the grant.
The position in England is different. A specific grant of 50 per cent. is given to local authorities, and the other 50 per cent. is taken from the block grant. My colleagues from Wales and I do not understand why Wales has been treated differently from England. Whether in Wales or in England, the regulations are bound to have an enormous administrative and financial impact on local authorities and the people whom they serve. In my local authority, the number of staff dealing with those matters will have to be doubled. The number of distress warrants will increase from 1,200 to 5,000, the number of accounts from 25,000 to 77,000, and the number of payments from 95,000 to a staggering 570,000 in any given year. If that is not a recipe for administrative chaos in the months ahead, I do not know what is.
It is certain that the regulations are as offensive to British people as the poll tax. They impose a heavy financial and administrative burden on our councils and the people whom they serve. They threaten our civil liberties and offend the basic sense of fairness and decency among British people. The Government tried to delay registration, but it made no difference—the people rejected the poll tax in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election and in the county council elections in Wales and in England. By every measure of public opinion that we have seen in the past few months, the poll tax is as deeply unpopular as ever it was. I ask the House to reject the regulations.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I will address some of the specific points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to the way in which the grant was operated in England and Wales. In Wales, every local authority is in grant, while some authorities in England are not. If there is no specific grant, authorities receive nothing towards their costs. It was felt to be more reasonable to operate the system in that way. In Wales, all authorities receive the sums of money that are put aside for them because of that technical difference. I do not think that there is a great difference between us on that issue.
I thought that we came to the nub of the arguments against—

Mr. Pike: We did not reach the nub of the arguments, because we were not allowed to.

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I should address the points that I believe constitute the nub of the argument.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out the three reasons why he believed that the measures should not be passed. He said that the measures should not be passed because they would create greater poverty. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. The rebates under the community charge are more generous than the present rate rebates. That means that, because of the rebates, many people will find themselves better off. It will also mean that single parents with families will be particularly helped. The poorest people will be most helped by the community charge.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey clearly has not understood the system. People receiving an 80 per cent. rebate will also receive an extra amount of money in their social security income support, which, in most cases, will cover more than the 20 per cent. It will be covered in all areas where there is no exorbitant spending by the local authority concerned. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that regard.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was wrong also, because the Liberal alternative as admitted by the Liberal party states that those on average incomes would be worse off if we have a local income tax than they would be under the community charge. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his own party politics and policy.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey went on to claim that the regulations will mean more bureaucracy. I find it extremely difficult to take the argument seriously.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer: I want to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
The hon. Member claimed that the measures would involve more bureaucracy. That is rich, coming from a party that wants a local income tax. The Liberal party wants every local town hall to decide the details of income tax—to have a locally operated income tax supplement. The hon. Member cannot complain about bureaucracy if he proposes a system which would be far more complicated and expensive. Under his system, the whole of income tax would have to be rebased. At the moment, in most cases it is based on where people work. It would have to be rebased on where people live in order to be effective. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about bureaucracy, given his proposal.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the regulations would mean less liberty. He said that somehow or other—

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer: I hope to answer the points which were specifically, carefully, and I thought courteously raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
However, the hon. Member lapsed into some rather odd words. He said that he would not want to grass on people. He did not want to be a sneak. He is asked to provide names and addresses so that those people may


bear their fair share of the costs of local authority services. If they do not do that, others will have to bear more than their fair share.
I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). We understand that the Liberals are happy to give information when it means that people get their rights, but they are unhappy to give information when it is a question of people's duties. I had always thought that the Liberal party, in its fine old tradition which many people in the past might have liked, believed that duties and rights went together. The late-lamented Gladstone would have had some pretty tough words for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about duties going with rights.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer: I want to respond to questions which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a number of points, most of which were spoiled by his rather churlish attitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke showed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith had gone as near to misleading the House as it would be parliamentarily proper for me to refer to. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that my hon. Friend had refused to accompany him on an appointment when my hon. Friend had actually explained that he could not do so because of his duties in the House and he offered another date to accompany him. The comments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith were a scandal. For that reason, I do not see that any of his other points are worth answering.

Mr. Nellist: If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, as the Minister has spent the past five or six minutes claiming, why are we debating 94 pages of regulations and orders in 90 minutes in the dead of night? Why were 21 million leaflets issued before the measures were debated, even though they came into effect before the House had debated them? Why did the Minister two weeks ago send a 620-word article to my local paper the Coventry Evening Telegraph and to the local paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? Indeed, as I discovered today, why did his boss the Secretary of State for the Environment send similar letters to 500 newspapers? If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, why have so much public money and so much Government time been spent on this? Does this not reflect the Minister's panic about the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hate this Tory tax?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is wrong to write a perfectly fair article explaining the community charge in his local newspaper. I understand that that local newspaper offered opportunities for others to write in as well. However, in its editorial, that paper stated that the opposition to the community charge was a load of old rubbish.
The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed because the Coventry Evening Telegraph wrote a good article in its leader column saying how out of date were the views put forward by the Labour party. I am sorry that it did that.
I should have liked an article from the Labour party explaining the two taxes that it would like to put in place of the poll tax.
I come back to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on this, because I do not want him to miss out. He asked whether it was true that rich people generally lived in bigger houses than poor people. The answer to that is that four out of 10 people living in above average rated accommodation have below average incomes. That is a fact of life. There is little connection between the ability to pay and the value of the house in which a person lives.
When the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has explained in the Coventry Evening Telegraph why Coventry city council still will not carry out the ombudsman's directions on the poor people whom it cheated out of money, he could go on to explain to the tenant of a council house who had decided not to buy his house, that he would, under the Socialist tax, be taxed on the freehold value of the council house even though he did not own it and even though his income was not sufficient to buy it. I hope that he will be able to explain that on the doorstep. Very few Labour canvassers have been able to do so, and that is why there is such an argument in the party about it.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall have to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I made some personal remarks about him, so it would be only right to give way.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister accept that, 10 days later, the Coventry Evening Telegraph gave me the opportunity to put our opposition to the poll tax in the same number of words as he put the case for it? I am grateful to my local newspaper for that.
Over half the families in Coventry depend on state benefit, and the poll tax will force thousands into penury. Artificial arguments about what will happen in two years' time after an election are hypothetical and cut no ice with people in Coventry who view the tax with horror.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, he is saying something that is untrue, so I am sure that he is not saying that. Anybody on social security in the way that he has suggested will get an 80 per cent. rebate and will have their social security uprated to cover the other 20 per cent. The only case in which that would not be true would be if Coventry city council was overspending to such a degree that it should be ashamed of itself. If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman may like to explain to the tenants that he represents that the council is overspending and living off the backs of those who can least afford it. But I am sure that he will not want to explain that.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, for reasons that he perfectly understands.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: I want to put one specific point—

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Wilson: I did not just come in. I have been present throughout, trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister's weasel-like performance will not enable him to avoid answering one point about the regulations. He has not yet answered one point that has been made about the regulations—but he will answer one at least, and that relates to the alleged generosity of rebates. Will the Minister confirm that in the vast majority of districts in England and Wales, as in Scotland, any 25-year-old single person with a net income in the region of £60, will qualify not for an 80 per cent. or an 8 per cent. rebate, but for none at all?
Will the Minister also confirm that a person earning up to £65 a week and not qualifying for any rebate could have arrested from his wages only £2 a week, which the courts deem to be an appropriate amount? In other words, if a person in receipt of such earnings does not pay, and the Government are creating an incentive not to pay— [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from the pamphlet "Ability to Pay" published by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Local Government Information Unit, which unfortunately have their facts and sums wrong. The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss this matter in detail.
The help that is given to those who are not able to pay the community charge is more generous than that which is offered to them under the rating system as it stands. It is a means of making sure that one in four of the population will have the opportunity of a rebate, and 5 million people will get the rebate. Therefore, with the uprating, unless they have a local authority which is maliciously overspending or is unable to bring its spending under reasonable control, they will have sufficient to cover the 20 per cent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had a good slice of time.
There are difficulties in taking any fairer system. It is much easier to have an unfair system such as the rates because it is levied on people's property, even though property has no connection with people's ability to pay and the property does not use the services. We tax property because 19th-century local government services were largely property services. We now have a personal charge, because we are dealing with services which are overwhelmingly personal services; 80 per cent. of them are concerned, for example, with education and personal social services.
The reality of the argument about the regulations that we are discussing is that the Opposition parties—both parties or both sets of Opposition parties or whatever collection one might refer to nowadays—do not want to have the rates, they both have an alternative of their own and their alternatives are more expensive to collect, less reasonable and accountable and put larger numbers of people in unacceptable positions to pay; and neither of them has suggested any sensible system of rebating to deal

with the considerable attacks on poverty that have taken place. I feel strongly about this issue, because, as I have gone round the country, I have discovered why.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating statutory instruments, and you will be aware of the complaints about the lack of time being given by the Government to hon. Members to debate them. Is it not out of order for the Minister to stray so widely that he is discussing the proposals of other political parties, rather than the instruments? [Interruption.] We will certainly debate the alternatives, but we want to debate the regulations now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's attack is based on the principle that he does not like the facts when he hears them. The difficulty for the Opposition is that the more one looks at the alternatives—

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must insist that this is a debate about the instruments. If the Minister wants to debate the alternatives, we will do that. I ask you to rule that it is not in order to widen the debate into what other political parties are proposing when we are debating these issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time is very limited, and the Minister is endeavouring to answer the debate.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Depth y Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting very close to disputing the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. I remind him that time is short.

Mr. Soley: I am aware that time is short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not disputing your ruling. However, I have not yet heard you rule on whether it is order, in a debate on statutory instruments, when prayers have been tabled, to widen the debate to include the philosophies of other political parties. I ask you to ask the Minister to stay in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is answering a debate on a wide group of prayers.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member of Hammersmith devoted much of his speech to complaining about the complexity and nature of the orders. I suggest that, if it were ever the misfortune of this country to suffer a Labour Government in which the hon. Gentleman formulated orders, they would be so complex that there would be a longing to return to so simple a series of regulation as those before the House now.
The hon. Gentleman attacks the regulations without saying what he would put in their place. That is a very comfortable position for the hon. Gentleman to adopt. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who attempts to interrupt from a sedentary position, wrote a newspaper article that was attacked in the editorial as being out of the dark ages. The hon. Gentleman was attacked by his own local newspaper for being totally unable to answer the case that I put in it.
Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman has not favoured the House with a contribution on the community charge this evening.
The regulations are the proper way to move forward to the new system, which is fairer than the old because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer than the old because those people who need help to pay the community charge will get it. It is fairer also because, at long last, it gives accountability to local people and not to the management committee of the local Labour party.

Mr. Dick Douglas: As a Scottish Minister is on the Government Front Bench, I want to draw attention to some of the anomalies that now exist in Scotland. The hon. Member—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [19 May] , to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put:

The House proceeded to a Division

Mr. Pike: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Back Bencher, and having noticed that you and Mr. Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker have occupied the Chair during what has been a difficult debate, I seek your guidance as to whether there is any procedure whereby the Chair can prevent such a sham of a debate and a sham of democracy that right hon. and hon. Members have endured tonight. Many Back Benchers wanted to speak on major issues, but they have been given no opportunity to make points for the Minister to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a debating point that is not a matter for the Chair. The debate was conducted in order. The House decided last Friday that the debate on the group of prayers should last for one and a half hours.

The House having divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.

Division No. 211]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Battle, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Cummings, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Buckley, George J.
Dixon, Don


Caborn, Richard
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Eadie, Alexander


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Eastham, Ken





Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooker, Jeff


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Turner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Wall, Pat


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Marek, Dr John



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martlew, Eric
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carttiss, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cash, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chope, Christopher


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Colvin, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon John






Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, George
Maples, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert





Riddick, Graham
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shelton, Sir William
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Summerson, Hugo



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the poll tax legislation, passed last year, left 736 items to be determined by orders and regulations. In a debate from 10 pm to 11.30 pm, we have considered six measures that take up 94 pages.
Four Front Bench spokesmen of various parties and two Conservative Members of Parliament were called to speak in the debate. Labour Members of Parliament wished to express the anger felt by constituents about the regulations, but they did not have the opportunity to do so. The regulations were introduced in a way that meant that the Opposition had to place a prayer on the Order Paper to force a debate.
You have just declared the result of the vote on the measures. During the last minute or so, they have become resolutions of the House. However, they came into force yesterday, 22 May. They became law for community charge registration officers 24 hours before the House took a decision on them. Those outside Parliament will be unable to understand the arcane and archaic way in which legislation that is enacted on 22 May is not debated until 23 May.
Is there any way in which you and your colleagues, including Mr. Speaker, can exercise any authority over the business of the House and ensure that the remaining 736 items that are to be dealt with by regulation or order are dealt with not at the dead of night but in prime time, or are given sufficient time so that all hon. Members can express an opinion on them on behalf of their constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that the Chair was doing on this occasion was carrying out an order of the House that was made last Friday. The Chair has no control over the length of speeches when prayers are being considered.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Nellist: I shall be brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Nellist: I thank you for your ruling, which I am not challenging; nor was I challenging the length of the speeches or your selection of speakers. I was challenging the length of the debate, which restricted the number of hon. Members who could be called.

PETITION

Football Identity Cards

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of several thousand supporters of Derby county and members of the Football Supporters Association. I believe that I am allowed briefly to summarise their concern, although I am not allowed to speak to the petition.
They believe that the proposal to have football identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football-related violence. What concerns them is that much of the violence takes place outside the ground and that it is best dealt with, as it is in Derby, through co-operation with the local police. Where such violence has taken place within the ground, the club—Derby County—has taken its own steps, through a key club and in some cases through a lifetime ban, to deal with such difficulties.
The petitioners also believe that the proposal will hinder attempts to attract a new generation of supporters to our own or to other football clubs. In particular, they are concerned that this will deter the casual attender, who might have been attracted towards becoming a long-term supporter of the game.
Finally, they are very concerned—as are all football supporters—by the entry problems that they believe a card system would cause. They were concerned about it before the Hillsborough disaster, but their concern has been heightened by what happened at Hillsborough. They call on the Government in their petition to bring forward proposals that would have the support of genuine football supporters.
I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.

Rain Forest (Government Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This has been a good parliamentary day for the rain forests when the chairman of the 1922 committee chose to use his question to the Prime Minister on that subject. It is a reflection of his own interests, which I respect, in conservation. It is a reflection, too, of the work done by television companies in programmes like "The Fragile Earth", and the work of the Friends of the Earth and many others who have raised the consciousness of this important subject of the tropical rain forest.
I wish to put some questions of which I have given the Minister and the Department notice. First, on Nepal, can anything be done about the urgent problem whereby, on account of relations with India, Nepal is so short of fuel that it has to cut down more of its forests than has been happening over the last few months? Could not something be done to help in the Gurkha situation which reached a climax with yesterday's statement?
Secondly, on Papua New Guinea, is there a case for helping those areas of the world that have rain forest that have passed laws where, if any tree is removed, another tree is planted? Those laws may be difficult to implement in the light of what the Japanese are doing in the island of New Guinea. May I recommend to the Minister a remarkable book by Evelyne Hong on the natives of Sarawak and the survival of Borneo's vanishing rain forest? Those of us who remember confrontation and were out there might reflect, as Michael Blair, who recommended the book to me and veterans of confrontation have done, that they did not risk their lives in order to see interesting peoples like the Punans and the Sea Dayaks being deprived of their eco-system. There is a moral issue involved.
Thirdly, I asked about the directives to the World Bank. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a statement. I put it as my personal controversial opinion that the World Bank should be able to make loans for nuclear stations. Many of my hon. Friends do not agree with this. I refer to the Minister's answer on 4 May:
The development committee of the IMF/IBRD has already agreed to discuss environmental issues at its next meeting in September. Meanwhile, the World Bank is intensifying its work on these issues, including its role in the tropical forestry action plan.
The role of nuclear power is considered within the energy development plans of a few IBRD borrowing countries but its cost, high technology and demand on scarce human resources make it generally inappropriate at present for the vast majority of developing countries."—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 189.]
That may be true, but the position in southern Brazil is different. It is immoral that the western world should get Brazil into deepening debt for nuclear power stations that are working at far from optimum capacity.
Fourthly, the Amar Indian chiefs Megaron and Payakan were my guests in the House of Commons. I took them to meet Mr. Speaker, for which I thank him. I also know that they saw the Minister. Perhaps he will reflect on his meeting with them.
Fifthly, I gave notice that I would ask what the attitude of the Government was in involving the European Community. I reflect that last week I was on an official

delegation that had an audience with the King of Spain. I had the opportunity to ask Juan Carlos about the subject in the presence of our ambassador, Lord Nicholas Gordon Lennox. Is there any way in which we can persuade the Spaniards, who cut much ice in South America—even in Portuguese South America—to help with the problem of the rain forests?
My sixth question, about climate, comes from the Friends of the Earth's Charles Secrett and Koi Thomson. What can the Government do to help Brazil come to terms with the burning season, which is from early July to October? I am glad that Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew, and Ron Kemp and Tim Sinnott should be going out for the Department. Could we adopt a system like that of the United States, and have a check list of human rights and environmental criteria for evaluating proposed loans, taking into account whether the projects for which they are sought are environmentally sustainable?
We must think in terms of providing guaranteed access to satellite imagery, and help with interpretation, so that the rain forest countries can know what is going on—what forests are being destroyed, and why. Most rain forest countries' Governments face difficulties, and assistance must be given in a non-interventionist way.
On 11 May, the Prime Minister answered:
The further assistance which we are currently discussing with the Brazilian Government with respect to the protection of the rain forests is likely to be in the area of technical co-operation rather than capital aid for equipment like helicopters."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 490.]
The Prime Minister, helicopters and I do not usually mix, but at the top of the Brazilians' list of requirements are four large cargo helicopters and two personnel carrying helicopters. They also say they need fire fighting planes, twin engined planes, gliders, vehicles, trailers, tank lorries, equipment-carrying lorries, trailer-pulling vehicles, boats for the establishment of bases, hard-hulled boats for sub-bases, hard-hulled boats, low draught fliers, camping material, and a radio and communication system. When Mr. Mesquite, the Brazilian Minister for the north, saw me in Brasilia, this was the list that he had in mind. We should take it into account.
Finally, I gave the Minister notice that I would refer to the New Scientist leading article of 20 May 1989, which states:
Now it is the turn of the poor countries to expand, if the populations of the Third World are to be supported in their present and projected numbers, they must industrialise. The question is how. If they follow Europe and America—inefficiently burning large amounts of cheap coal and oil, demolishing forests and using inexpensive, chlorinated hydrocarbons for everything from pesticides to refrigerators —we will all drown, or fry together.
In Helsinki, China sought an international fund to help it to replace ozone-threatening chemicals with safe ones. The Chinese are not holding the planet to ransom. They know we are all in this together, and they want to use clean technology. But they will not be able to impose more expensive technology on an already hard pressed population when cheaper technology is to be had.
The same applies to India, Brazil and the other poor giants whose farms, factories and populations will one day control the fate of the atmosphere. And yet, Ridley, and his counterparts in the EEC, bitterly opposed such a fund in Helsinki.
What is the Government's attitude to accepting some moral responsibility? The rain forest countries may naturally be proud of their sovereignty, but rain forests are part of a world problem.
I shall cut short my remarks, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has played a distinguished role in this area, a chance to speak. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has the agreement of both the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister to speak?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is a welcome tribute to my hon. Friend that so many hon. Members are here for the debate.
My hon. Friend has pointed out a fundamental problem that the whole world is facing, and that the British Government and the British Parliament can assist in solving.
I have tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the subject of the rain forests. Today's asked:
what information she has received concerning the rate of destruction of the world's forests for each of the past 20 years; and if she will make a statement.
The answer she gave was that she did not have the information for the whole of that period but
the latest internationally comparable figures were published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1982 and relate to tropical forests during the period 1976–80.
So this is quite some time ago. The destruction rates were—in Africa 1·33 million hectares a year or 0·61 per cent. of the total; in Asia and the Pacific, 1·82 million hectares a year, or 0·59 per cent. of the total; and in Latin America, 4·12 million hectares, or 0·61 per cent. of the total. Overall, in that period, on average 0·61 per cent. of the total rain forest is being destroyed every year. In some countries in west Africa and Latin America, the rate has increased visibly since 1980, to the extent that the Gambia has lost 90 per cent. of its tropical rain forests. The situation there is catastrophic.
The Minister has answered questions on this subject many times in past debates. The main question concerns what can we do to influence the policies of the European Community, the World Bank, the international monetary fund and the foreign aid policies of the British Government. Much of the past development in Brazil of the Grand Carejas project was funded largely by loans from the World Bank and the European Community, which paid for cheap iron ore to be excavated, in order to pay for Brazil's debt. That also financed the destruction of much of the rain forest and the habitat of much wildlife and many people who lived in that area.
There are many examples of the IMF adopting a strategy of insisting that every poor country must produce its way out of debt—in other words, by going for export-led promotion of primary products, which has often led to the destruction of forest. It is short-sighted and inefficient. I have three quite graphic personal examples produced by the Sierra Club, the club of people acting as global environmental monitors on what the World Bank is doing. It quotes a man called Renato in Brazil, who could not believe his luck when he was given 100 hectares of rain forest to clear. The problem was that, after he had cleared

it, as his friends also found, they produced good crops for a couple of years, but the soil was unsustainable for future crops, and the land turned into desert.
In Botswana, massive grazing was introduced for developing a cattle industry. The grazing took place, but that led to desertification as the forests were cut down to promote it. In Java, Indonesia, people from the city were given two or three hectares each to produce crops, but the deforestation led to local climatic changes, which led to serious problems of leaching of the soil, and subsequent infertility, and desertification.
For each country concerned, it is disastrous. For the individuals concerned, be they the indigenous peoples of the Amazon or the farmers encouraged to move into those places, it is disastrous, but for the planet as a whole, it is doubly disastrous because we are losing many sources of wildlife and flora. We are losing a major producer of oxygen and replacing it with a major producer of carbon monoxide, which contributes to the global warming effect.
We are looking for the strongest possible representations by the British Government for environmentally sensitive policies that protect the rain forests, and an understanding that, if we are to contribute to the world's environment, we cannot go on demanding such enormous debt repayments from the poorest countries and peoples. By doing so, we are contributing to the destruction of the planet on which we all rely for life. I know that the Minister has looked into this on many occasions, and that many changes are taking place in the attitudes of the IMF and his Ministry. We look forward to a much more robust performance in the future to protect the environment of the world and the people who live in it.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Christopher Patten): I welcome the opportunity to debate a subject of considerable global significance with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who I know feels very deeply about it. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was able to intervene. The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows that I feel as strongly as he does about the subject. I visited the Oxford Forestry Institute for much of last Thursday and that visit increased my concern and interest. I greatly admire the work of that world-renowned institute and I hope that we shall be able to give it greater assistance in future.
I welcome the opportunity today to report the activity by my Department since the hon. Gentleman last raised the subject, in a debate on 13 March. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out the consequences of deforestation in the rain forests and elsewhere, and described our existing aid. Most importantly, he explained the outlines of the forestry initiative that we are undertaking in response to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's pledge to the House that
we will direct more of our aid to encourage the wise and sustainable use of forest resources." [Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c.15.]
Since the last debate, the significance of my right hon. Friend's pledge has been reinforced by the seminar that she held on global climate change. Forest destruction contributes up to 20 per cent. of man's total carbon dioxide emissions—yet forests could provide a significant way of locking up carbon for lengthy periods and in that way alleviating global warming.
Halting and reversing the current alarming rates of loss of all types of forest would thus benefit us all. Promoting alternative sustainable livelihoods for the desperately poor around the world who are currently forced to clear forests for agriculture would help them by stopping soil erosion, flooding and loss of soil fertility. Trying to halt the unsustainable destruction of rain forests has the added global benefit of preserving the world's richest store of genetic diversity. With the prospect of all those benefits, it is no wonder that we are devoting considerable effort to our forestry initiative. We are concentrating especially on the most important facet—encouraging individual developing countries to direct more of our aid to forestry.
It is important that, before we spend money on projects, we should engage in dialogue with our partner Governments so that we agree the relative priority to be given to forestry within our relationship. Projects that do not meet the priorities of our partners are unlikely to be effective. As a prelude to that dialogue, my staff reviewed the possibilities and identified more than 20 countries where we are particularly well placed to help. The list is long because we in Britain are fortunate in the wealth of our tropical forestry expertise.
Since the last debate, dialogue with those countries has already resulted in an impressive amount of action. Most importantly, we have actually reached agreement with India on £40 million of new local costs aid for environmental projects. As the House might expect, given the high priority that India gives to forestry, we expect the bulk of this to be spent on forestry projects although it is also available for local costs incurred in helping India to adopt alternative strategies to the use of chlorofluorocarbons. I shall return to that point. We hope that the first project to benefit from the agreement will be a scheme to conserve the forests of western Ghats in Karnataka state of south western India. The western Ghats include the largest area of evergreen rain forest in India. The project will involve a joint effort by the local people and the Forest Department to reduce forest clearance, burning and grazing and to rehabilitate or replant degraded areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Brazil and asked about my recent meeting with Chiefs Payakan and Raoni. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Latin America is not in general a focal point for our aid programme. The poorest countries and the Commonwealth continue to be our first priority, but we are very conscious of the importance of Latin America's forests and we are actively seeking ways in which we can help.
We have had fruitful discussions with two very senior Brazilian officials, the Secretaries-General of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of the Interior. I shall be meeting Dr. Mesquita, director of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources, at the beginning of next month. The Brazilians think highly of the research being carried out by the Royal Geographical Society and others in the Maraca rain forest project, and they would like the ODA to do more in that area. As the hon. Gentleman said, this week a group of experts, led by my senior forestry adviser and including Dr. Prance, the distinguished director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, are visiting Brazil to discuss with institutions there how we could help.
One of the projects that our mission will be looking into is possible help for research on the effect of rain forest loss on climate and rainfall—a point to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has drawn attention in the past.
That is of particular concern to all of us. The group will also include an expert on urban environment, as the Brazilians are eager for us to help with the many problems of their huge and growing cities. It is reasonable that we should try to assist there as well as in the forests.

Mr. Dalyell: Is Tim Sinnott the urban environment expert?

Mr. Patten: I will give the hon. Gentleman further information on that later.
The Brazilians have not asked us for capital aid. I gather that they are likely to put forward proposals for support of that kind to the World Bank. Until our mission reports, I cannot say exactly what form our collaboration will take, but I am hoping to visit Brazil myself in July to carry matters forward. We give this issue priority. I have not only met Brazilian officials. I have also had meetings with the Indian Chiefs Raoni and Payakan, who have vividly, movingly and with considerable dignity, told me of their problems and of the need to demarcate their reserves to save them from further exploitation. I emphasise that have promised to consider positively any proposals that the British charity, the Rainforest Foundation, might put forward to us for joint funding.
In that context, I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman had discussed Amazonia with His Majesty the King of Spain. There is obviously a need for everyone to engage in dialogue with the countries of the Amazon basin about the global importance of their resources. Spain is especially well placed to help. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the European Community, in appropriate programmes, should take account of the environmental impact of development.
The mission to Brazil is not the only one that my staff are undertaking. A team has recently returned from Sri Lanka and is currently preparing proposals for a joint project with the World Bank aimed at research, forest management and reaforestation in the southern uplands. A team of experts are travelling to Indonesia this week to identify in discussion with the Government there areas in which we can provide further assistance.
We have also been active in west Africa. One of my forestry advisers took part in the tropical forestry action plan sector review in Cameroon in late April and was able to offer our support for a project in forest management and regeneration techniques as part of total donor pledges of more than $50 million. At present, there is little forest management or application of sustained yield principles in Cameroon, which contains twice as much utilisable lowland forest as the rest of west Africa.

Mr. Dalyell: I acknowledge the importance of west Africa, which the Minister knows well, but before the Minister leaves the subject of Asia, will he tell us whether, the delegation to Indonesia will also consider the questions of Papua New Guinea and Sarawak?

Mr. Patten: I am coming to Papua New Guinea shortly, if I have the opportunity. I have not exhausted the list of activities that are under way, but I had better turn to some of the other specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman referred to relations between India and Nepal. We had a useful debate on that issue on 28 April, in which I made clear the Government's views. As both countries know, we very much hope they can reach a settlement satisfactory to both, before lasting damage is


caused to the development and economy of Nepal—already one of the world's poorest nations. We are, of course, particularly disturbed by the delays and extra costs inflicted by this dispute on development projects of great importance to Nepal's future and the consequences for its forests. The World Bank is evaluating the effect of the dispute. There has been no evidence yet that special measures are necessary but, as always, we would look sympathetically on any request for help. I was able to discuss that issue informally with Nepal's distinguished Finance Minister in Beijing a couple of weeks ago.
Of course, Nepal's forest degradation long preceded the present dispute and forestry has had a high priority in our aid programme over the past 10 years. Our current commitments to forestry projects in Nepal are about £7 million. A forestry master plan for the development of the sector over the next 25 years is being discussed by the Government and donors. We have agreed that the ODA should build on our existing strengths in forestry research and large-scale community forestry programmes.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked about Papua New Guinea. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade recently met Mr. Philemon Embel, who described the existing structure of forest management, logging, export from and replanting in Papua New Guinea. I understand that efforts are being made to ensure that appropriate re-afforestation takes place, in accordance with the country's laws, but that enforcement remains a problem. At present exports, which go mainly to Japan, consist primarily of logs, and little processing of timber is carried out in Papua New Guinea itself. During the short meeting, Mr. Embel made no specific request for assistance from the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
As hon. Members will appreciate, Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the international tropical timber agreement. I look forward to hearing a report of the discussions this week at the ITTO council meeting in Abidjan. It is of vital importance to all who care about the rain forest that the International Tropical Timber Organisation should reach agreement on codes of conduct for the sustainable management of commercial logging. That is the only way to ensure that the resource will still be available for our grandchildren.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned the World Bank. Since its reorganisation in 1987, the bank has significantly expanded its environmental work, with special attention being paid to the threat of deforestation.
In the bank's last financial year, it made nearly $170 million of new commitments for forestry projects, including conservation.
The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to climate research. Man-made climate change is possibly the greatest challenge to the principle of sustainable development. That is one reason why we attach such importance to the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Dr. John Houghton, director general of the Meteorological Office, chairs the scientific assessment working group of the IPCC. The Government fund plenary meetings of the group and have made available a further £665,000 for a special centre and staff. This is the largest international review ever undertaken. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the research now taking place in this country.
We do not believe that panic measures are justified, but equally we agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that it is not enough simply to sit back and wait for our research programmes to bear fruit. To have any real effect, our responses must be internationally agreed and implemented, and they must recognise the difference between countries. It is with this in mind that we have recently called for the urgent consideration of a framework convention on climate change.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow drew attention to an article in the New Scientist about the Helsinki conference. That article is worth a whole debate. My views on the issues raised form the basis of an hour's lecture that I gave in Cambridge, a copy of which is available in the Library. All that I would like to say now is that the opposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and of other Ministers present at the conference, to a common fund for CFC replacement projects was based in part on the fact that the bureaucratic process needed to set one up would delay the practical help that we could provide under the bilateral aid programme. As I said earlier we have already offered such help to India. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my right hon. Friend's statement, and I will ask that it be placed in the Library.
I have no doubt that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to help countries such as India, China and Brazil to cope with CFC substitution as well as with the problems of forestry to which the hon. Gentleman has eloquently referred again today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.